Grace, Faith, and Works

Crucifixion, by Cavallini

Real Audio Lessons on this Topic

Justification by Faith Alone? I
Justification by Faith Alone? II
Justification by Faith Alone? III
Justification by Faith Alone? IV
What it means to be born again
Are you saved?

The Catholic position on salvation can be summed up thus: We are saved by Christ's grace alone, through faith and works done in charity inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Sola gratia! Grace alone -- but a grace we have to co-operate with. Thinking that all one has to do is pray the "Sinner's Prayer" once to be saved is wrong. Thinking that all one has to do is be a "good person" to be saved is wrong.

"We are saved by 'Faith alone'": No!

It takes more than simply knowing Jesus is the Messiah to be saved; even the Evil One knows Who Christ is.

James 2:14-26
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The Bible and the Catholic Church don't separate the "works of faith," preceded and caused by grace, from salvation (see relevant Scripture below) You can have all the faith in the world, enough to move mountains, but if you don't have charity, you are nothing:

I Corinthians 13:2 2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

"We can work our way into Heaven": No!

Catholic teaching for 2,000 years:
we are saved by grace alone, through faith that works in love

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

The Catholic Church and Her Bible condemn the idea that one can work his way to Heaven on his own merit or that God "owes" a person for doing the right things.

All our works get their merit only from Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf. We can do "works" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for the rest of our lives, but without Christ's grace, they are nothing. Works have no merit in themselves -- and faith without works is not enough. We are saved by grace alone -- a grace that we accept neither "by faith alone" nor "by works alone," but "by faith that works in charity" (Galatians 5:6).

Something I came across on the Internet demonstrates the obvious importance of works. Below is a (albeit rather smart-alecky) joke letter to a pastor who preaches "faith alone":

I am a former Catholic who was recently saved through the Grace of Jesus Christ. All my life I knew I was a homosexual. The Catholic Church told me that I had to refrain from what I was in order to be saved! I never knew that my good works meant nothing! To think, I would have spent my entire life struggling not to engage in homosexual activity, just to wind up in Hell! I now realize that Salvation is through the finished work of Christ ALONE, and not from good works. I am now living as an active homosexual in the freedom of Jesus Christ!

The pastor, almost completely misunderstanding Catholicism but who has an entire ministry devoted to "saving Catholics", responded in part by saying:

It is true that a person is not saved by his works and that salvation is completely of grace. However that does not mean that works have nothing to do with salvation.

Well, "pastor," that's what Catholics have been saying all along!

The bottom line: all salvation comes from the grace of Christ's Sacrifice and only from the grace of His Sacrifice. Salvation is a free gift -- a gift that is not "owed" to us, that God didn't have to offer us, and that we could never "earn" on our own -- that we accept by faith and works. Christ doesn't have to give us this gift of salvation; we don't "deserve" this gift, we can't "earn" it; but He, in His endless Love for us, offers it nonetheless. We have to believe this gift exists (have faith) and then open our hands to receive it (obey, inspired by the grace given to us).

An analogy: there is a train called "Grace" that is the one and only route to Heaven and which is fueled by Christ's Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension alone. Some Protestants seem to believe that all one has to do is believe the train exists and all will be well. They accuse Catholics of thinking that belief in the train is unecessary, that we can give out free soup in the train station and, thereby, bypass the train altogether. But what Catholics actually believe is that the train -- Grace -- is the only way to Heaven, that it is the only means by which we are saved, that we can't take another route and can do nothing about getting to Heaven without that train. But we also teach that we have to believe in the train's existence and board it through repentance and obedience to what Christ teaches. God is the Conductor of the train, completely Sovereign, and can go off the tracks if need be to pick up those who are truly and invincibly ignorant of the train's existence but who are of good will, obey the natural law, and whom He deigns to save. If, when, and how He might do such a thing is completely up to Him and not for us to bicker about. It is to us to do what He has taught us: to believe, repent, love God and neighbor, and preach the Gospel.

Born Again?

Many non-Catholics, in their confused zeal for Jesus, are constantly asking Catholics if we are "born again," admonishing us that unless we are "born again" we cannot be saved. But you see, Catholics, like St. John the Evangelist in the third chapter of his Gospel, relate the phrase "born again" to the results of Baptism. Baptism is how we enter into the New Covenant, in the same way the Hebrews and Israelites entered the Old Covenant through circumcision (which, you'll note, was done to infants).

When many Protestants use the phrase "born again," they seem to be referring to an "emotional experience." They often expect instant transformation (which can certainly happen), speaking in tongues, miracles, etc. as some sort of "proof" of having been "born again."

Traditional Catholics most certainly agree that repentance (what we call "metanoia") is necessary and that inner transformation (what we call "theosis" or "sanctification") is the goal, but we are very conscious of not confusing "feelings" with "faith." These are two different things, and mere "feelings" can lie: ask anyone who's ever been "love-bombed" in a cult, experienced cocaine or Ecstasy, been to a Woodstock-like music festival, or is just having a really excellent day. Oceanic "feelings of oneness" and "happiness" can be had in pagan religions (read about Greek and Roman "bachanalias" sometime), through natural or artificial chemicals, through the feeling of "falling in love," through hypnosis, through highly sensual experiences, and other things that have nothing to do, inherently, with Christ. The ancient Greeks babbled in tongues, and glossolalia can is still practiced today among Voudun ("Voodoo") cults, during Japanese seances, and by other false religions and in other cultures all over the world. These sorts of experiences must be discerned, and the spirits must be tested! Remember what Christ said would happen even back in the first century:

Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

It is important to test the spirits and not devalue reason and doctrine! Know that the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance according to Galatians 5:22-23. The fruits of the Spirit are not out of control shaking, screaming, running around, falling down, "holy laughter," vocalizations that don't edify the Church, a "feeling" that doctrine and religion are now unimportant, etc. One should be more in control of one's self after an encounter with the Holy Spirit, not less.

St. Teresa being filled with the Holy Spirit (by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 17th c.). Catholics would call this experience "being in ecstasy" or "having a mystical encounter."

As to "personal relationship with Jesus, " think of the great Saints -- everyone from Thérèse de Lisieux to St. Francis -- are these people not "born again" in the Protestant sense of "having a deep relationship with Christ" while still remaining 100% believers in traditional Catholic doctrine? Read about the life of St. Patrick and then talk to me about a "personal relationship" with Jesus that some Protestants think Catholics just don't understand.

What of our holy martyrs like Maximilian Kolbe or Nikolaus Gross, murdered by Nazis because of the virtue compelled by their Catholic faith? What about Joan of Arc, martyred for her refusal to deny the divine origins of the voices that led her to defeat the English? If you want "personal relationship with Jesus," read the writings of St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross!

Have you been saved?

Another question Catholics often hear is, "Have you been saved?" Catholics, though, don't see eternal salvation as a one-time event that one can pinpoint and relate to others by saying, for example, "I was saved at 5:30 pm on 23 October 1988 when I got on my knees and accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior." We think of salvation, ultimately, as a process that is begun with faith and Baptism (or just Baptism in the case of infants) and is then "worked out" (Phillipians 2:12) as we endeavor to "put on Christ." Additionally, we don't see salvation as something that can't be lost (2 Peter 2:20-21). Even St. Paul himself, the one who did more than anyone else to spread the Gospel, wasn't sure of his own salvation. He wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:27

But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Who are we to be more "sure of our salvation" than the Apostle Paul?

Most Catholics, of course, are able to speak of specific events such as the first time they truly "got it" that Jesus is Lord or that the Church and its Scriptures are true; many are able to tell specific stories of experiences of the Holy Spirit. Many have wonderful stories of healings, consolation, and miracles. But to speak of "having been saved," in the past tense, is something we tend not to do unless we are speaking about our Baptism, at which time we were first justified. We speak, instead, of "being saved," in the present tense, as we obey Him after Baptism and endeavor to keep accepting the gift of salvation which we could never earn on our own.

Many Protestants tend to see salvation in legal terms: "I believe, therefore, I am saved because that is God's promise to me. As long as I believe, I can't lose my salvation because the terms of the contract are that I simply believe and I will be saved." Catholics see salvation more in terms of kinship, our adoption into God's very family, our becoming, literally, true children of God and inheriting Christ's sonship through Jesus' sacrifice. We see "working out our salvation" as those things we, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are called to do as children of God, in the same way that a child honors an earthly parent -- and we see God's gift of eternal salvation to us as an inheritance from our Father rather than a "pay-off" for having fulfilled a "contract" by a simple assertion of faith. And as a father can "disinherit" a child if that child no longer treats him as father and freely walks away from his inheritance, so our Father in Heaven can "disinherit" those who don't treat Him as Father (Romans 11:22; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:4-6; 2 Peter 3:17-18). For more in-depth information, read the transcript of this debate on "justification" between Scott Hahn, Catholic and former Presbyterian minister, and Dr. Robert Knudson of Westminster Seminary.

To sum up

So, here's how a Catholic would answer the standard questions from Protestants:

Q.	Have you been "born again"?
A.	Yes, when we are baptized, we are "born again of water and Spirit" (John 3).
Q.	Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?
A.	Some Catholics are good Catholics and have a deep personal relationship with Jesus by trusting in Him and receiving His Sacraments. Other Catholics are mere "cultural Catholics" who call themselves "Catholic" because they were baptized once, but don't believe what Christ's Church teaches or don't have the will to practice what His Church commands. Such Catholics are "dead members" of the Church and must be restored by faith and the Sacraments. Instead of the "Sinner's Prayer," each year at the Easter Vigil, Catholics renew their Baptismal promises by rejecting Satan and all of his works, and by affirming their faith in God the Father, in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, and in the Holy Ghost. Yes, a Catholic could go through the Vigil by rote and not mean it, just as a person can say the "Sinner's Prayer" and not mean it. Christ is the Judge of men's souls, however, and He knows who truly has faith.
Q.	Have you been "saved"?
A.	Those Catholics who have faith and obey the will of the Father are being saved, by the grace of Christ alone. Catholics who don't have faith and don't obey the will of the Father will not be saved unless they repent and begin to have faith and keep the commandments.
Q.	If you were to die tonight, do you know for an absolute certainty that you would go to Heaven?
A.	No more than St. Paul did when he wrote to the people of Corinth. But we do have the assuredness of knowing that God keeps His promises, that He is good and merciful and just, and that He so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son so we might not perish but have everlasting life if we believe, repent, obey, and trust in Jesus.
Q.	By what means are we saved?
A.	By the grace of Christ Whose Blood was poured out for us at Calvary. This Sacrifice is the only means of salvation; by Christ and Christ alone may a man be saved. There is no other way to the Father.
Q.	Why was His Sacrifice necessary? Why did He have to die?
A.	God is infinite Justice and Perfection. Because He is infinite, our sins offend Him infinitely. There is such a chasm between God in His vast perfection and us in our creaturely weakness that nothing we could do could possibly assuage Him for our offenses. But as much as we deserve death, He loves us still and wants us with Him for eternity. In order to restore His honor and maintain the perfection of His justice, there had to be an infinite Sacrifce of appeasement. So, God Himself took on flesh by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary and became man, not only to teach us with His words, but to save us with His Blood. Only God Himself could save us from the effects of our offending Him because we are so imperfect and weak.
Q.	What must we do to accept the fruits of this Sacrifice and be saved?
A.	In three words, "Believe, repent, and obey." We must: · believe and trust in Christ (John 3:16); · repent and be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for the remission of sins (Matthew 28:19, John 3:3-5, Acts 2:38); · obey the will of the Father and keep the commandments (Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:16-19); · eat the Body of Christ (John 6:51-69) -- but not unworthily, and only after discerning the Lord's Body lest we eat damnation onto ourselves (I Corinthians 11:23-30); · judge ourselves (1 Corinthians 11:28-31) and, when we fall, confess our sins to those to whom Christ has given the authority to forgive sins in His Name, and to obey that authority when it comes to what is bound and loosed (Matthew 9:5-8, Matthew 18:18, John 20:21-23, 2 Corinthians 5:18); · love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31).

Relevant Scripture

1 Samuel 2:30
Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

Matthew 7:21
Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 19:16-19
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matthew 24:13
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mark 4:14-19
The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown; when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word which is sown in them. And these in like manner are the ones sown upon rocky ground, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns; they are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world, and the delight in riches, and the desire for other things, enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

John 15:6
If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

John 3:1-7
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit [Baptism]. You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.' [This entire chapter is about baptizing, John the Baptist, "ceremonial washing", etc.]

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 5:28-29
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Romans 2:6
God will render to every man according to his WORKS.

Romans 2:13
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the DOERS of the law shall be justified.

Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8:29-30
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. [Note that the verbs here are in the past tense; Paul is undoubtedly referring to those who've died in a state of grace and whose justification and santification have been completed. And don't read this verse out of context of the one that came 12 verses before it -- Romans 8:17, which says that our glorification depends on our suffering along with Christ, and Matthew 22:14 that says "For many are called, but few are chosen." Being "called" doesn't mean automatic justification.]

Romans 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Romans 10:9-10
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Romans 11:17-23
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graff them in again. [In other words, you're "grafted in," a part of the New Covenant -- but don't brag because you can be cut off]

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [It doesn't say "unless these people have had the experiences of "feeling saved" or having been born again.]

1 Corinthians 9:27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. [Even Paul wasn't sure of his own salvation!]

I Corinthians 10:8-12
Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. [NIV: "So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!"]

I Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:13
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. [Charity is greater than Faith!]

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:4
You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which WORKETH BY LOVE.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For BY grace are ye saved THROUGH faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Phillipians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Colossians 1:23-24
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of [lacking in] the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church. [the NKJV and the NIV translate this last part accurately as: "and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."]

1 Thessalonians 1:3
Remembering without ceasing your WORK OF FAITH, and LABOUR OF LOVE, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Thessalonians 1:11
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the WORK OF FAITH with power:

1 Timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. [RSV: "...worse than an unbeliever." What is being said here is that "believing" is not enough!]

1 Timothy 6:17-19
Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

2 Timothy 2:12
If we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us.

Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

Hebrews 10:26-29
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

2 Peter 2:20-21
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. [the Greek word for knowledge here is epignosei, which means a knowledge from experience, not just intellectual knowledge, which would be oida. In other words, the people being talked about here "knew Christ", they had a "personal encounter with Christ" and had the experience of "getting saved"; they didn't just simply "know of Him."]

2 Peter 3:17-18
...beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever.

1 John 2:24
Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. [in other words, it is possible not continue in the Father and the Son; it is possible to fall away]

James 1:21-27
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But BE YE DOERS OF THE WORD, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James 2:14-26
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD ALSO.

James 5:20
Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Temporal and Eternal Salvation Important article on Protestant and Catholic uses of term "faith"
Righteousness and Merit another article highlighting the differences in Catholic and Protestant language
Justification by Faith Alone
Justification in James 2
Salvation Past, Present and Future
Resisting and Cooperating with God
Are all Christians Predestined to Persevere?
The Evangelical notion that Christians can't lose their salvation is unbiblical

Good morning. For completeness sake, not that most of you will accept any of this, but in case my own apologetic (based on these) that later followed on this thread leads some to error.

Which honestly has been error based on error, the blind leading the blind, that of a parade of reproved parroted polemics by promoted by papists.

These apologetics are pretty much what I said already, but with a few details I missed/screwed up,

Why lose any unique aspects?

The careful reader (of those links) will also note that they address every single issue raised since my original post to metmom, and even some more. Every. Single. One.

And the careful objective (faithful RCs simply cannot be) reader should see how your argumentation and its basis was refuted, and thus the recourse to "only your anti-Catholic interpretation" type response.

And that you must compel Scripture to serve Rome, as it is not your master, and that even your foundational premise for determining Truth is not Scriptural!

Secondly, as to the "point" that these aren't "official" teachings "of Rome". That objection, quite frankly, is an opportunistic cheap shot meant to deflect the entire work of apologetics.

Rather, it is perfectly fitting, as what is cheap is trying to argue as if the weight of Scriptural substantiation was actually determinative of doctrine, and when refuted, you fall back to "It’s really only your *opinion* of what Scripture says," meaning only what Rome officially says is determinative of Truth, not the weight of any evidential arguments anyone else presents.

Thus if you are going to interpret Scripture at least admit Rome only what Rome says is determinative of Truth, and provide her interpretation of Scripture (though these themselves are not even held as infallible), not things such as the prohibition against consuming blood of bulls and goats was to prevent the Jews from becoming like Pagans who ate blood to gain life properties. At least that was a novel one to me!

Thirdly, as to the point that Catholics aren't allowed to speak of Scriptural matters, this is just wrong.

I am not sure who said that, unless it is another instance of your misapprehension of me. But if you do engage is debate on questions of dogmatic or moral theology then you are violating Rome - in its past tense manifestation.

We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii:Catholic Encyclopedia, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Discussions

Commenting on this, the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia states, “This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public....But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy. - www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm

But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide" (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March, 1625: "The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done. The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude.

That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that discussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be permitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled. The Holy See, it is added, considering that these discussions often produce no result at all or even result in harm, has frequently forbidden them and ordered ecclesiastical superiors to prevent them; where this cannot be done, care must be taken that the discussions are not held without the authorization of the Apostolic See; and that only those who are well qualified to secure the triumph of Christian truth shall take part therein. It is evident, then, that no Catholic priest is ever permitted to become the aggressor or to issue a challenge to such a debate.

font color="#4c1900">“...the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 9, “Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers?”; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm

Is it permitted for Christians to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! - (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)

How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship." (Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the Baltimore Catechism)

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion" - III Council of Constantinople.

Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord, and to open his ears to those who have received the grace to teach, and be taught by them divine things; for in one Church God has made "different members," according to the word of the Apostle... But if any one be found weakening [disobeying] the present canon, he is to be cut off for forty days. — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

Fourthly, sorry I guess when I said (later), "What I mean by “anti-Catholic” is that you oppose (not just disagree with but actively oppose) the Catholic Church’s teachings on virtually all her dogmas except I guess the Trinity.", the word "virtually" was lost on some of you.

Yes, the Lord and His disciples had the same "anti- stance, (Mt. 23; Acts 14:15; Jude. 1:3) versus "this is just a matter of opinion," and established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, thank God, not the premise of the assured veracity of the historical magisterium, as per RCs.

You obviously accept the dogma of the Virgin Birth, the dogma of the Resurrection, the dogma of the Return of Christ (unless you are a Preterist), and the dogma of Heaven.

And God as the Creator, Adam and Eve as the first two humans, historical accounts such as Balaam and the donkey, Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel, the parting of the Red Sea, Jonah and the fish, Joshua's long day, etc. were certain historical events, not fables or folk tales as sanctioned Catholic scholarship has taught for decades.

You reject the dogma of the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic (note the word "Apostolic" there) Church

Oh yes, as Rome is not even in the running for having Biblical apostles in the light of their requirements and abundant manifest supernatural and virtuous credentials.

But let me help you. See post #100 here . How can we believe in an invisible of purportedly "visible" church in Scripture? It simply is not there, requiring egregious extrapolation by RCs to conjure up Rome's perpetual assured infallibility of office; any pastors titled "priests" (with normatively required clerical celibacy) as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved; that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, with the church looking to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches; sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith; and becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death; or prayed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, or used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

So, go ahead and get the precious "last word" in, if it's so important to you, I don't care. I'm done with this thread.

The last word is that of Scripture, and which you will indeed mind some day for placing and believing Rome over it.

A Response to Tim Staples on the Eucharist:

In my 2011 debate with Dr. Peter Barnes, a Presbyterian minister and apologist in Australia, the topic was the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and it centered on Jesus’ famous words in John 6:53: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” After about three hours of debate, I could sum up Barnes’s central objection in one sentence—a sentence which just happens to be found in the New Testament: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:53)

So Staples begins in bad form, by seeking to impute unbelief to Barnes as to how the presumed Eucharistic miracle could occur. But beside being unfair to Barnes, this is begging the question, presuming the answer in the question, and therefore a form of circular reasoning. The question to be decided from the text is not how Catholic transubstantiation occurs, but whether it occurs at all, and more importantly, what was Jesus actually teaching, i.e., where does the text actually lead us.

Dr. Barnes could not, and would not, deny the Lord said what he said in Scripture. His only recourse (as is the case with all who deny the real presence), ultimately, was to claim Jesus was speaking “metaphorically.” And after all, he had to be… right? I mean, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” In other words, his ultimate objection to the Catholic and biblical position is not so much rooted in the text as it is in a fundamental incredulity when it comes to the words of the text.

Again, a sustained ad hominem, an attack on Barnes rejection of the presumed outcome. As such not a substantive argument at all. Barnes obviously believes what Jesus said. But His understanding of what Jesus means is quite different, and that is where the focus belongs. Impugning Barnes with unbelief seems uncalled for here.

I argued in that debate, and I will again in this post, that if we examine the text carefully, not only is there nothing in it that indicates Jesus was speaking metaphorically, but the text itself actually points in the opposite direction.

Proving John 6 has no metaphor would require excising it nearly entirely from Scripture, as the passage has not just one, but many closely interrelated metaphors, at least as linguists define metaphor. Perhaps Staples is working from some more eclectic dictionary and means something other than what students of language ordinarily mean by that term.

Just the Facts. First, everyone listening to Jesus’ actual discourse 2,000 years ago believed him to have meant what he said. That is significant.

No. The idea that Jesus' audience was a monolithic group is a presumption not a fact and is not supported by the evidence. The situation was more complex. The verse describing the crowd's response is here:

Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Note the word "strove." In Greek it's "emachonto," which ordinarily would refer to armed conflict, but here describes more of a war of words, and this occurs not between Jesus and the crowd but between some in the crowd versus others in the crowd, a harsh debate, which necessarily means they did not all share the same opinion about what he meant.

For example, in his Letters on the Eucharist: Addressed to a Member of the Church of Rome, E.O. Phinny recounts a conversation from the Babylonian Talmud where the various schools debate over who will "eat" Messiah and when. This did not refer to Messiah physically, but referred to the material bounty expected upon the arrival of Messiah. Apparently some were "preterists," in the sense they though Hezekiah's reign was the Messianic fulfillment, while others were futurists and waited for a time yet to come. The bottom line is, the notion of "eating" Messiah had already taken root as a metaphor for Messianic blessing and bounty, so depending on who was there, you could have contrary factions in the crowd taking one of several positions on what Jesus actually meant. We also know that some among the Pharisees, such as Nicodemas, were sympathetic to Jesus, albeit a minority. They too may have stimulated the internal debating of the crowd.

The point is, Staples' assertion that the crowd had an absolutely monolithic understanding of Jesus' words is in direct conflict with the text. Therefore, every further premise built on that false foundation is discredited.

This is in stark contrast to other places in the gospel where Jesus did, in fact, speak metaphorically. For example, when Jesus spoke of himself as a “door” in John 10, or a “vine” in John 15, we find no one to have asked, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?”

Staples again reveals to the attentive reader that he is using a much narrower definition of "metaphor" than the standard dictionary definition. So let's talk about what metaphors actually are. A metaphor works by creating a partial overlap between two otherwise dissimilar conceptual domains. If the linking verb of being is "is," (Greek estin), then we say it is a direct metaphor: A is B. If we use A is like B, that is also a metaphor, but indirect. In either case, we are using A to teach about B because they are different enough they won't be confused, and yet they have some attributes in common so we may use the one to teach about the other.

As a classic example, in Shakespeare Romeo compares Juliet to a summer day. No confusion is really possible, yet we get that sense of warmth and cheer that Juliet bring to Romeo. Thus a summer's day, with which we are all familiar, has been used to teach us about Juliet, with whom we are not familiar.

Likewise, in each of the cases Staples mentions above, the door, the vine, etc., the domains are sufficiently different that no domain confusion was likely to occur. We know by direct observation Jesus is not a door or a vine. But that does not preclude more difficult metaphors, ones in which the two domains are different, but not in a directly visual way. But if the analysis gives us a metaphor by the rules, then that's what it gives us.

Compare these to John 6. Jesus plainly says, in verse 51, “I am the bread come down from heaven and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (vs. 51). The Jews immediately respond, as I said above, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” They certainly understood him to mean what he said.

Again, Staples is begging the question. We don't know if they understood Him or not at this point. We do know there was dissent in the crowd, NOT uniform understanding. Furthermore, we know these men are carnal, and not (presently at least) being drawn to the Lord, because Jesus expressly says so in verses 64-65. Can we trust their judgment? Or can we eliminate metaphor in the speaker simply because His listeners had difficulty spotting it?

1Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

We also know that the default teaching mode for Jesus in public settings was parable:

Mat 13:34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: (35) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

So if His carnal listeners didn't get it, en masse, then first of all, that's what we Paul says we should expect of carnal minds not enlightened by the Spirit, and second, who are we to say that He expected them to get it, when he specifically taught that it was His expectation that some should NOT "get it."

Mat 13:13-15 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: (15) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Moreover, when people misunderstand Jesus, he normally clears up the misunderstanding as we see in John 4:31-34 when the disciples urge our Lord to eat and our Lord responds, “I have food to eat which you do not know.” The disciples ask each other if anyone had brought any food because they thought our Lord was saying he had to bring his own food because they had forgotten to do so. They misunderstand him. But our Lord immediately clears things up saying, in verse 34, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.”

And yes, Jesus does offer clarification to His disciples, and most often only to them, because such exchanges were typically private tutoring. His disciples were intended to understand. By contrast, the crowd in John 6, as we have already established, had an abundance of unbelievers, who were tagging along not because they were disciples in the full sense, but because they had just been fed by a food miracle, and they wanted more of that, yet not wanting the true source of their most important food, because they were not among those who were being drawn to the Father. That they received a clarification of any kind was an act of grace on Jesus' part.

A Real Barnes Burner. In our debate, Dr. Barnes had a very interesting rejoinder to this point. He claimed, in essence, that in at least some cases when his listeners misunderstood our Lord, he purposely made no attempt to clear up the misunderstandings. And Dr. Barnes then cited three more examples claiming this to be a pattern in the gospels.

In which case Barnes was following the Scriptural pattern accurately, as indicated above. A parable is an extended metaphor. I am surprised that Staples here does not at least acknowledge the problem of the public parables being given with no guarantee that Jesus expected them to understand.

1. In John 3:3-4, Dr. Barnes claimed, Jesus left Nicodemus in the dark when after he declared to him, “… unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God," Nicodemus responded, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

But with Nicodemas I think Barnes' example is defective, though Staples misuses the error. With Nicodemas, Jesus does go on to say that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit, so He is giving Nicodemas the same sort of key to unlock the spiritual and NOT corporeal meaning as He provides His disciples in John 6:63. As this was a private exchange with one sincere inquirer, we can see that Jesus is treating Nicodemas as a disciple in the making, if not yet over the threshold, and so receives an extra measure of help. So the pattern Barnes had proposed is actually holding up pretty well here.

Response: Even a brief perusal of John 3 and John 6 shows a substantial difference between the two. In John 6:52-53, the Jews were “disputing among themselves and saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” That is the context in which Jesus then appears to confirm them in their thoughts and reiterates, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

No, Jesus does not confirm their confusion. The crowd in John 6 was conflicted among themselves, having a virtual war of words over what He meant. Which of their misconceptions did He confirm? None. What did He actually say? He did NOT say, "Those of you who think this is about eating my physical flesh, you got it right." He basically ignored their ignorance and confirmed one thing, that His offer of food to them through His body and blood was absolutely real and absolutely necessary.

(This, BTW, is in striking similarity to the Nicodemas narrative, in which Jesus affirmed the reality of the new birth too, even confirming it with the same formula "Amen Amen" He uses repeatedly in John 6. So why do Staples and his co-apologists not recognize the error of making synonyms out of "real" and "corporeal?" I don't know. There is nothing more real in the universe than God, and God is spirit. The new birth is spiritual, and very real. Therefore affirming that something is "real" does NOT force one to think it is "corporeal." Keeping that in mind ...)

No matter how one interprets Jesus’ response to Nicodemus beginning in John 3:5, he doesn't come close to saying anything like, “Amen, amen I say to you, unless you climb back into your mother’s womb a second time and be born anew, you cannot have eternal life.”

And He says nothing of the kind in John 6 either. Again, Staples is jumping to conclusions by assuming the "realness" of Jesus' body and blood as food can only mean corporeal realness as food. But spirit is real too, and spirits can eat:

Joh 4:32-34 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. (33) Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? (34) Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

And here:

Mat 4:3-4 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. (4) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

And so we see again and again how spiritual eating of spiritual food is a constant theme in the teaching of Jesus. Therefore, while Staples can see this dichotomy of spirit and flesh when he comes to Nicodemas, his assumption prevents him from seeing the same exact analogy at work in the Bread of Life discourse. Nevertheless, the analogy is "real," and very striking, if one is open to it:

Joh 3:5-6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Note that He first uses the "Amen Amen" to confirm the absolute reliability of what He is teaching, exactly as He does in John 6, then He clarifies the meaning as spiritual, not fleshly, exactly as He does in John 6.

He says you must be “born of water and spirit… the wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit (vs. 5-8).” This seems to me to be clarification that he is not speaking about climbing back into a mother’s womb. Being “born anew” is a spiritual experience that transcends literal birth from a womb.

And just as the Nicodemas clarification is a redirect from the physical to the spiritual, so too is John 6:63 the clarification that Jesus in no way is advocating a corporeal eating of His flesh, but shows forth a spiritual meaning, belief as a way of consuming and drawing sustenance from the Bread of Heaven, Jesus Christ, The crowd was willing enough to be fed by his physical bread, but they were hard-hearted toward His spiritual claims on them, and so shut their own eyes and so defeated their own capacity to see the spiritual meaning. This self-imposed blindness led them down one dark alley after another, ever seeing but always refusing to see the obvious, even when Jesus gave them every clue.

In fact, this is one of the more interesting aspects of metaphor. A metaphor is designed to create a learning event, using A to learn about B, through shared attributes. But what if the subject is so prejudiced against the conclusion, that they refuse to learn what the metaphor can teach them? This really happens psychologically. The learning event can fail if there is a predisposition to reject the conclusion. This explains beautifully why the literalists in Jesus' crowd got stuck on physical eating. They were at heart rejectors of Jesus, so they were functionally unable to learn the spiritual lesson expressed in the eating metaphor. All they could see in their blindnesss was the physical act of eating. They couldn't link it to believing in Jesus, because they didn't want to go there.

2. In John 4:7-15, Dr. Barnes claimed, Jesus left the famous “Samaritan woman at the well” in her misunderstanding when she thought Jesus was offering her literal, physical water. But is that really what we find in the text?

If this is what Barnes did, and I am taking Staples at his word here, then I would agree that by the end of the conversation the woman is beginning to get where Jesus is going, that the water He speaks of is somehow connected with recognizing Him for who He is, and thus being set free from the sins of her past to worship God in spirit and in truth.

Response: When Jesus asked this Samaritan woman for a drink in verse seven, she was most likely not only shocked that a Rabbi would speak to a Samaritan woman in public, but that any Jew would ask an “unclean” Samaritan to draw water for him. But in verse 10, Jesus answered her, If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, “Give me a drink,” you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.

Agreement here. She would have been shocked. This has no bearing on Staples argument, but it is good to find agreement wherever possible.

The woman then responds, in verse 11, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water?” To which, Jesus responds, in verse 13-14, Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life. In verse 15, the woman then begs our Lord, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”

Again, nothing controversial here. The Protestant Bible says the same thing.

There is no doubt the Samaritan woman has it wrong here. But far from leaving her in her error, our Lord responds most profoundly, beginning in verse 16, “Go, call your husband…” And when the woman responds, “I have no husband,” in verse 17, Jesus reads her soul and tells her, “You are right… for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband.”

As stated above, we agree here that Jesus does move toward giving her a spiritual understanding of what He meant. In fact, this point is so obvious it makes me wonder whether Barnes actually missed it, or whether in context of the debate he was trying for some other point which Staples has not clarified for us in his recital. On the other hand, in the context of debate, sometime people make mistakes they would never make if they had time and reflection to write their arguments out.

He now has her attention, to say the least. And he then turns the conversation to what he was really speaking about in terms of the “living water” he came to give that would “well up to eternal life.” In verse 23, he declares, But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. [24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

And so now we have Jesus redirecting her to think of this water in spiritual terms. Yet Barnes is right in one thing, if indeed he says Jesus didn't give the full answer, because He didn't. Jesus did encourage her to think in spiritual rather than corporeal terms, yes, but He didn't talk about this water as a representation of the infilling of the Holy Spirit upon regeneration, a doctrine that would not be fully manifested until after Pentecost.

When the woman then responds, in verse 25, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things," Jesus then tells her plainly, in verse 26, “I who speak to you am he.” It seems clear that the woman then understood that Jesus’ words were metaphorical concerning the “living water,” because she immediately “left her water jar,” went back to her fellow countrymen and urged them to, “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ” (verses 28-29)? And according to verse 39, “Many Samaritans… believed in him because of the woman’s testimony.” She came to realize Jesus was about much more than filling war jars.

Indeed, and on this point I think we all agree, and I suspect Barnes would too, but that is speculation on my part without having watched the debate. It just seems too obvious to miss, and that always raises a red flag with me. But more importantly, this entire subplot has been introduced by Staples as a way of arguing there was no way Jesus was going to leave the crowd in John 6 with the wrong impression, because clearly He did help others. But as we have shown above that is fallacious reasoning, for two reasons:

1. Jesus very often did leave the crowd in the dark, as He did in the parable of the sower of the seed. So there is no assurance He would set the crowd in John 6 straight, even if He was more helpful with the Samaritan woman or Nicodemas.

2. Jesus did in fact offer a clarification in John 6:63, that the category of this teaching was spirit, not corporeal. The fact that the crowd refused to accept this correction is no fault of Jesus'.

3. Dr. Barnes also claimed that when Christ said “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” in Matthew 16:6, the apostles thought he was speaking literal, which is true. But Matthew 16:11-12 could hardly be plainer that Jesus did not leave them in their ignorance: How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread… Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

I am not aware of nor does Staples here inform us of how Barnes characterized this event. But yes, as here, so with Nicodemas, the woman at the well, AND John 6, there is the offer of some degree of correction. The thing is, in John 6, there was, I would argue, less need of a corrective than in these other circumstances. Why? Because Jesus has already established the context for the specific metaphor in question in verse 35, complete with not only a classic statement of metaphor (I am the Bread of Life), but followed on immediately with an explanation of what we are to learn from the metaphor (Jesus permanently satisfies our hunger and thirst):

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

This amounts to a preemptive strike against any argument for a corporeal misunderstanding of His meaning. First He describes the two things to be compared (bread versus Jesus) with the linking verb "is." So this is definitely a metaphor. But then He goes further and immediately explains how bread teaches something about Him. The shared attribute is that both bread and Jesus can satisfy hunger if eaten. And how does one "consume" Jesus? By coming to Him and believing in Him (which are two different ways of saying the same thing). And here's the big clue. Is belief a physical act, or a spiritual act. Of necessity, spiritual.

Spirit vs. Flesh. There is much more about the text of John 6 and the greater context of the New Testament in general that make a “Catholic” understanding of John 6:53 unavoidable. In our debate, Dr. Barnes and I grapple with many of those texts.

Meaningless blather. Substance please ...

But John 6:63 is probably the most important of all to deal with as a Catholic apologist. This is a verse that is set within a context where not only "the Jews" who were listening, but specifically “the disciples” themselves were struggling with what Jesus said about "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood." “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it” (verse 60)? It is in this context that our Lord says to the disciples: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

As noted above, this motley crew of a crowd included more disciples than just the twelve. Others had begun to follow Him in the wake of His popularity as a miracle worker, especially of late the stunning multiplication of loaves and fishes. It is not at all clear that His inner circle of twelve were among the grumblers and doubters. How could they be? Toward the end He tells the doubters they have NOT been given belief by the Father. Of the twelve, that would only apply to Judas, but most likely the rest did believe, and understand, as Peter would testify representatively at the end of the chapter.

The Protestant apologist will almost invariably say of this text, “See? Christ is not giving us his flesh to eat because he says ‘the flesh is of no avail.’” There are at least four points to consider in response:

1. If Jesus was clearing up the point here, he’s a lousy teacher because he didn’t get his point across. According to verse 66, “many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” immediately after this statement. They obviously still believed his earlier words about "eating [his] flesh" to be literal because these "disciples" had already believed in and followed him for some time. If Jesus was here saying, “I only meant that you have to believe in me and follow me,” why would they be walking away?

It is insidious to charge Jesus with the failure of unbelievers to believe. That's just what unbelievers do. It isn't Jesus' fault. Furthermore, Jesus specifically identifies their unbelief as the core problem:

Joh 6:63-65 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (64) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Notice the sequence. First He says the spirit makes alive, and the flesh has no value (Greek ophelei). Then He places His own words in the category of spirit, therefore His words make alive. Now He says "BUT," some of you don't believe, and you don't believe because the Father didn't grant you that belief. So the one and only method He outlines for partaking of Himself as food is belief, and then He says that His doubters don't have that belief. So why is anyone, including Staples, the least bit surprised when unbelievers end up not understanding something you can only understand IF you believe? That's why they were hung up on the flesh, because as non-spiritual beings, that's all they had. They were as Paul says, dead in their trespasses and sins, of carnal minds, unable to comprehend spiritual things. If they fail to get Jesus' lesson, they are to blame. Not Jesus.

And again, this correlates to why there is a group that walks away. We know it isn't everybody. The twelve hang with Jesus right up to the last supper, so it can't be referring to them. Even Judas didn't leave at this time. But if the food groupies left, because they "figured out" that Jesus was not an EBT card, that would be carnal wisdom, and spiritual foolishness, in exactly the group we would expect to see it, those not granted faith by the Father.

2. Jesus did not say, “My flesh is of no avail.” He said, “The flesh is of no avail.” There is a big difference! He obviously would not have said my flesh avails nothing because he just spent a good portion of this same discourse telling us that his flesh would be “given for the life of the world” (John 6:51, cf. 50-58). “The flesh” is a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace (see Romans 8:1-14; I Cor. 2:14; 3:1; Mark 14:38).

Jesus would not make the statement "my flesh is of no avail," because it wouldn't make sense to the argument He is building. In verse 63 He is not speaking of a specific instance of flesh, but flesh as a category, as He often has before, distinguishing between things spiritual and things worldly, just as He does with Nicodemas and the Samaritan woman. Spiritual life comes from spiritual sources, not corporeal. He was only using the corporeal figure of eating to teach about those spiritual realities. Therefore defining categories such that the spirit gives life, and His words belong to that category, would be exactly what He was saying back in verse 35.

It is true He gives His flesh for the life of the world, and His flesh is corporeal. But the metaphorical approach to this passage does not deny the physical reality of Christ or the physical nature of His sacrifice for us. To suggest that it does reflects a basic misunderstanding of how metaphor works. A metaphor is just a device used to teach about one thing by means of another. It's not the metaphor that's spiritual, it's the eating. The body of Christ, given for us in crucifixion, is corporeal. But how do we partake of the benefit that death provides to us? We partake of the benefit of ordinary physical food by eating it. But the death of Christ in His body is an event with spiritual consequences. Our sins have been paid for. How to we take part in that spiritual benefit? By believing in Him. Just as He said in verse 35 above. The spiritual eating, belief, gives life. The physical eating has a profit margin of exactly zero, with respect to eternal life. Nothing there. Look to the spirit, and you solve the puzzle. Look to the flesh, and you come to a dead end. Quite literally.

3. That which is “spiritual,” or “spirit” used as an adjective as we see in John 6:63, does not necessarily refer to that which has no material substance. It often means that which is dominated or controlled by the Spirit. For example, when speaking of the resurrection of the body, St. Paul writes: “It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body” (I Cor. 15:44). Does this mean we will not have a physical body in the resurrection? Of course not! Jesus made that clear after his own resurrection in Luke 24:39: See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.

This discussion of the spiritual body is creative but again not appropriate to the context. First, in our passage, "spirit" is NOT an adjective, but a noun. An adjective may well describe some composite of things for which the adjective gives the dominant feature, but not the only feature. If for example we say chess is an intellectual activity, we do not mean there are no physical playing pieces. Certainly there are. But the dominant activity is mental. But if we say success in chess depends on intellect, we are using the term as a category, not an adjective, and indicates we are speaking only of intellectual processes and qualities, not mixed with physical components. In other words, by using these two categories, we are contrasting the intellectual aspect of chess with the physical components of chess.

So too this use of spirit versus flesh in contrast to each other is for the purpose of making a distinction, in this case to teach that belief is the spiritual means of consuming the Bread of Life, including those benefits acquired by virtue of His dying for our sins.

The resurrected body is spiritual and indeed we can be called spiritual as Christians inasmuch as we are controlled by the Spirit of God. Spiritual in no way means void of the material. That would be a Gnostic understanding of things, not Christian.

Staples' raising the Gnostic denial of the physical Christ is completely out of place here. Two contrasting categories exist, spirit and flesh. Spiritual life belongs to the category spirit, and fleshly life belongs to the category flesh, and they serve two different functions. One does not cancel the other out. This is exactly what Jesus told Nicodemas, yet Staples does not rush to (false) innuendo of Gnostic heresy there. That's because there, as here, it is indisputable that spiritual life must come from a spiritual source, in which physical life is no help at all for that purpose. Which is night and day different from the Gnostic error, which completely displaced the physical as not even being real for Jesus. This type of sloppiness on Staples' part is not a credit to his apologetic approach. It is ad hominem by innuendo, and a false accusation at that, and does not advance the understanding of the text in any meaningful way.

4. In verses 61-62, Jesus had just said, “Do you take offence at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” Jesus wants to ensure the apostles do not fall into a sort of crass literalism that would see the truth of the Eucharist in terms of gnawing bones and sinew. It is the Holy Spirit that will accomplish the miracle of Christ being able to ascend into heaven bodily while also being able to distribute his body and blood in the Eucharist for the life of the world. A human body—even a perfect one—apart from the power of the Spirit could not accomplish this.

This is a gloss of pure imagination dropped over a text which in context has no connection whatsoever with transubstantiation, a quasi-Aristotelian speculation that would remain unheard of in the church for the next nine centuries, and even then hotly disputed and found contrary to Augustine and other early Christian thinkers. Instead, Jesus is dealing with the offense of His doubters. It is easy to be offended at the idea of needing this lowly Jesus for eternal life, at least while the Son of Man, Logos, Creator of the Universe, Prince of Peace, Mighty God, High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, stands before them in mortal disguise. But will they still be "offended" when they see Him ascend into the heavens to resume His former glory?

And that is precisely when He hits them with their category error. All along it has for them been about their bellies, their power, their aspiration to wealth and comfort, their anger at occupying Rome, their desire for revenge on their enemies, their arrogant view of their standing with God as the chosen people, on and on and on, lust and pride on steroids, with not a hint of spiritual life. And so this too they see in physical terms. But Jesus says no, they are in error. Category error. All this talk about eating has been about the spirit, spiritual eating, not corporeal eating, which spiritual eating He has already explained in verse 35 as coming to or believing in Him, His words, His person. And if they don't see that now, in His humility, if they are offended now, when He seems so weak, there will be no recourse for them once He visibly ascends to be with His Father, to rule in glory. When faith becomes sight, the opportunity for faith has passed.

Thus, Jesus words, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” refers to the truth that it is only the Spirit that can accomplish the miracle of the Eucharist and it is only the Holy Spirit that can empower us to believe the miracle.

Staples here assumes facts which are not in evidence. In John 6 there has been no discussion of the transformation of ordinary bread into body and blood. That is to confuse First Century metaphor with medieval alchemy. Instead, just as the Father miraculously sent manna from heaven to feed Israel physically, so now Jesus descends from Heaven to feed them spiritually, which feeding they must do by believing in Him, which capacity to believe is itself miraculous, because it must be given by the Father, else they will not believe, and so will not eat of the bounty of Messiah. Yet clear as this is, Staples seems to build his entire argument on the premise that it was actually those same unbelievers, with their crassly corporeal interpretation of eating, who were right after all, even though Jesus specifically denies this with His rebuke in verse 63. And even though Peter demonstrates that spiritual eating, that complete believing in the words of Christ, as a living model of the very thing Jesus was teaching:

Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

In so saying, He agrees with Jesus that this is a spiritual matter, not corporeal, by declaring his belief in the words of Jesus as the only source of hope for eternal life. And who am I to disagree with both Peter and Jesus? If Tim Staples prefers to believe the unbelievers instead, that is his choice, but I think it is singularly unwise.

Peace,

SR

That brother, is a superb scholarly refutation of the sophistry of Staples and his parrots and the absurd carnal Catholic misapprehension of John 6. Praise be to God. Bookmarked and pinged to others.

I was unaware of the Staples debate and of Barnes, yet now i see where some of the argumentation the poster partly parroted came from, and your response covers most of the same arguments and compliments my responses earlier in this thread

the topic was the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and it centered on Jesus’ famous words in John 6:53: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” After about three hours of debate, I could sum up Barnes’s central objection in one sentence—a sentence which just happens to be found in the New Testament: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:53)

Apart from the issue of just "how," the issue is how can the Lord claim it is absolutely unequivocally necessary that one literally consume His physical flesh and blood in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life.

That Jn. 6:53 is an absolute imperative is clear from examining other "verily verily" statements, so that this consumption is as unequivocally necessary as is for sinners to be born of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God. (Jn. 3:3)

Yet for all the demands of Catholics that we submit to this as an unequivocal literal necessity they themselves do not, for it means no sinner can be saved who denies the Catholic "Real Presence," while Rome herself affirms (though SSPX types may disagree) that properly baptized Prots have life in them, and some can have eternal life without believing in the "Real Presence."

And in the light of the abundant use of figurative language in Scripture, and in which, as said and shown, men are both called "bread" for Israel, and water is called the blood of men, and the words of God are eaten;

and of John's use of such for Christ and spiritual things, and in characteristically using the earthly, the physical as allegorical to the spiritual, as also shown;

and the the fact that nowhere is literally eating anything is the means by which sinners obtain have spiritual and eternal life, then the metaphorical apprehension of Jn. 6:29ff is the only one that is consistent with the rest of Scripture.

in his Letters on the Eucharist: Addressed to a Member of the Church of Rome, E.O. Phinny recounts a conversation from the Babylonian Talmud where the various schools debate over who will "eat" Messiah and when. This did not refer to Messiah physically, but referred to the material bounty expected upon the arrival of Messiah. Apparently some were "preterists," in the sense they though Hezekiah's reign was the Messianic fulfillment, while others were futurists and waited for a time yet to come. The bottom line is, the notion of "eating" Messiah had already taken root as a metaphor for Messianic blessing and bounty, so depending on who was there, you could have contrary factions in the crowd taking one of several positions on what Jesus actually meant

This was new information to me, while it remains that the only example of souls literally consuming physical flesh and blood in order to obtain spiritual qualities is among pagans. But which is consistent with Rome.

yes, Jesus does offer clarification to His disciples, and most often only to them,

Indeed, and as shown, while allowing the lost to continues in their misapprehension, ass seen with their understanding that He was referring to the physical temple. The problem is that Catholics simply refuse to accept the only interpretation that is consistent with John and the means of obtaining spiritual life.

And just as the Nicodemas clarification is a redirect from the physical to the spiritual, so too is John 6:63 the clarification that Jesus in no way is advocating a corporeal eating of His flesh, but shows forth a spiritual meaning, belief as a way of consuming and drawing sustenance from the Bread of Heaven, Jesus Christ,

Indeed that is the only consistent understanding. Nowhere do souls obtain spiritual life by taking part in the Lord's supper, so that they do not have it until they do.

2. In John 4:7-15, Dr. Barnes claimed, Jesus left the famous “Samaritan woman at the well” in her misunderstanding when she thought Jesus was offering her literal, physical water. But is that really what we find in the text? If this is what Barnes did, and I am taking Staples at his word here, then I would agree that by the end of the conversation the woman is beginning to get where Jesus is going, that the water He speaks of is somehow connected with recognizing Him for who He is..Barnes is right in one thing, if indeed he says Jesus didn't give the full answer, because He didn't. Jesus did encourage her to think in spiritual rather than corporeal terms, yes, but He didn't talk about this water as a representation of the infilling of the Holy Spirit upon regeneration, a doctrine that would not be fully manifested until after Pentecost..

Correct, and this is another example of the manner of teaching in John, and in which we see a clear parallel.

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. (John 4:14-15)

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he . (John 4:25-26)

I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours. And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman , which testified, He told me all that ever I did. (John 4:38-39)

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. (John 6:33-34)

And this is the will of him that sent me, 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. (John 6:40)

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life . (John 6:63)

So in Jn. 4 the Lord offers water for eternal life, and in Jn. 6 he offers bread. As you said, the explanation in Jn. 4 is somehow connected with recognizing Him for who He is, the Messiah, and believing on Him, and likewise that is what John 6 speaks of.

All these texts in John are understood in the light of the rest of Scripture, and John always says everlasting life is by believing on Christ as the Messiah, for as elsewhere, believing in the Son of God and His atonement that one obtains spiritual and eternal life . 1 John also details how one can know they have eternal life, but says zero about literally consuming the body of Christ, but instead speaks of faith in Christ and His atonement. (1Jn. 4:10,14).

As a consequence of truly believing on Christ then one will take part in the Lord's supper, but this is not to obtain spiritual life but to show it, that of the communal unity with Christ in His death in love for each other, the focus being on Christ and the body He bought with His sinless shed blood, not bread in the only place where the gathering together is manifestly described. ( 1Cor. 11:20-34 cf. 1Cor. 10:16,17)

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.