The Catholics and my conclusion
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If a Catholic has received Salvation and that Catholic is following God only, then that Catholic is no longer a Catholic but a Brother in Christ who is caught up in a false church.
We should pray for these Brothers that God will remove them from the Catholic Church and plant them in a true Christian Church.
We should pray for these Brothers that God will remove them from the Catholic Church and plant them in a true Christian Church.
Its easy to determine who has Salvation and who does not by what they say and teach. If what they teach agrees with what the Holy Spirit says there is a very good chance they have received Salvation. If what they teach is the opposite of what the Holy Spirit says is a very good indicator they have not received Salvation.
Matthew 7:15-20
[SUP]15 [/SUP] "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
[SUP]16 [/SUP] You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
[SUP]17 [/SUP] Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
[SUP]18 [/SUP] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
We CAN know if a person has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior and who has not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior!
Matthew 7:15-20
[SUP]15 [/SUP] "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
[SUP]16 [/SUP] You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
[SUP]17 [/SUP] Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
[SUP]18 [/SUP] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
We CAN know if a person has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior and who has not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior!
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. (wikipedia).
Due to the overwhelming amount of red herrings from the "faith" worshiping mob, I'm ignoring them.
The doctrine of justification by faith alone (JBFA) was invented by Martin Luther; some people don't like his name mentioned because that proves what should be obvious. It's man made and unhistorical. He didn't discover something hidden, he invented it.
First of all, the Scriptures themselves CONDEMN the Lutheran idea of "justification by faith alone" in no uncertain terms:
James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Luther himself admitted that St. James' views were incompatible with his system, but instead of submitting to the Word of God, he tried to have James removed from the Canon! So much for Sola Scriptura! But in any case, Luther was far more honest than his spiritual spawn down through the centuries. They have tried every tactic possible to prove that the Bible does not mean what is says but that it actually means the complete opposite of what it says. None of it is either convincing or edifying.
James 2:24 stands as a Scriptural refutation of all that Protestantism stands for. St. James makes it clear that good works COMPLETE a saving faith and are and integral part of justification, not a mere by product of "being saved" (James 2:22). And it is very clear that St. James is not talking about being "justified before men" as opposed to being "justified before God". He is addressing specifically the questions:
James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
The answer he gives under Divine Inspiration is a resounding "NO!" and it is high time that Protestants admitted that.
But it is true that the term "justified by faith alone" WAS used in the Patristic and Scholastic literature prior to Luther. But not in the way that Luther used it and consequently, not in the manner that St. James condemned it.
The Fathers and Doctors of the Church long before Luther recognized that no one could stand before God in righteousness apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ. No human effort alone could possibly gain any merit before. And so, quite rightly they taught that being justified before God could be achieved by Christian Faith ALONE.
But these Fathers and Doctors were Realists, not Nominalists. They comprehended that being justified before God was an ontological reality, not a mere external imputation of an "alien" righteousness belonging properly to someone else. In support of this they once again had the Scriptures:
Rom 6:1
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2
By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Rom 6:3
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
Rom 6:6
We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
Rom 6:7
For he who has died is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8
But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
Rom 6:9
For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
Rom 6:10
The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Rom 6:11
So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.
Rom 6:13
Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.
Rom 6:14
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Rom 6:15
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Rom 6:16
Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Rom 6:17
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,
Rom 6:18
and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Rom 6:19
I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.
Rom 6:20
When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Rom 6:21
But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Here St. Paul teaches that in Baptism were are regenerated. We die to sin and rise to a new life in Christ Jesus in which we cease being slaves of sin and become instead the slaves of righteousness. We now yield our members to righteousness in order to be sanctified and the end of that SANCTIFICATION is ETERNAL LIFE.
It can clearly be seen that in St. Paul's view, justification per se was more than merely some forensic declaration. It was a state of being that began with Baptism and came to its full fruition in righteous living (sanctification) which was the basis for our hope in eternal life with God.
The Catholic Tradition taught this quite clearly. It was recognized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on Romans that justification was a product of a saving faith composed of three elements:
1) Believing about Christ - Faith properly so-called
2) Believing in Christ - Hope
3) Believing into Christ - Charity
He saw this as the natural progression from a mere intellectual belief , to a heartfelt personal understanding, and finally a life commitment. Note that these are the Three Theological Virtues from 1Corinthians 13 understood as the logical progression of an ever deepening act of faith.
(H. Richard Neibhur would label these three elements of a saving faith asFides, Fiducia, and Fidelius. I like these labels because they emphasize that the Theological virtues can only be properly understood as types of of faith.)
So for the Fathers and Doctors a saving Christan faith had three elements: intellectual, affective, and volitional. But this was ONE act of faith taken to its logical conclusion. If one really believes the promises of God, he not only trusts in them but acts in light of them. So good works are the result of volitional acts of faith and a true saving faith is incomplete without them (See James 2:22).
Luther would have none of it. For him, the act of faith was a trusting belief in God's promises of forgiveness alone without any volitional component. Any "good works" which resulted were the external by-product of the internal "saving" faith. In essence, salvation became intensely subjective and personal to the exclusion of any objective or interpersonal elements. And internal moral regeneration as the foundation of righteousness was excluded. Sanctification was a process that followed after forensic justification and contributed nothing to salvation.
Recognizing this, evangelical Anglican and Oxford Professor Alister McGrath wrote at the conclusion of his book IUSTITIA DEI: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge Univ Press, 1986), Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 19 --
Luther's doctrine was not known or taught prior to his time. It was entirely new: unbiblical, untraditional, and thereby heretical.
Catholicism is not the only church that teaches this, the minority is the majority in places like this.
Due to the overwhelming amount of red herrings from the "faith" worshiping mob, I'm ignoring them.
The doctrine of justification by faith alone (JBFA) was invented by Martin Luther; some people don't like his name mentioned because that proves what should be obvious. It's man made and unhistorical. He didn't discover something hidden, he invented it.
First of all, the Scriptures themselves CONDEMN the Lutheran idea of "justification by faith alone" in no uncertain terms:
James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Luther himself admitted that St. James' views were incompatible with his system, but instead of submitting to the Word of God, he tried to have James removed from the Canon! So much for Sola Scriptura! But in any case, Luther was far more honest than his spiritual spawn down through the centuries. They have tried every tactic possible to prove that the Bible does not mean what is says but that it actually means the complete opposite of what it says. None of it is either convincing or edifying.
James 2:24 stands as a Scriptural refutation of all that Protestantism stands for. St. James makes it clear that good works COMPLETE a saving faith and are and integral part of justification, not a mere by product of "being saved" (James 2:22). And it is very clear that St. James is not talking about being "justified before men" as opposed to being "justified before God". He is addressing specifically the questions:
James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
The answer he gives under Divine Inspiration is a resounding "NO!" and it is high time that Protestants admitted that.
But it is true that the term "justified by faith alone" WAS used in the Patristic and Scholastic literature prior to Luther. But not in the way that Luther used it and consequently, not in the manner that St. James condemned it.
The Fathers and Doctors of the Church long before Luther recognized that no one could stand before God in righteousness apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ. No human effort alone could possibly gain any merit before. And so, quite rightly they taught that being justified before God could be achieved by Christian Faith ALONE.
But these Fathers and Doctors were Realists, not Nominalists. They comprehended that being justified before God was an ontological reality, not a mere external imputation of an "alien" righteousness belonging properly to someone else. In support of this they once again had the Scriptures:
Rom 6:1
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2
By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Rom 6:3
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
Rom 6:6
We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
Rom 6:7
For he who has died is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8
But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
Rom 6:9
For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
Rom 6:10
The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Rom 6:11
So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.
Rom 6:13
Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.
Rom 6:14
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Rom 6:15
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Rom 6:16
Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Rom 6:17
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,
Rom 6:18
and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Rom 6:19
I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.
Rom 6:20
When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Rom 6:21
But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Here St. Paul teaches that in Baptism were are regenerated. We die to sin and rise to a new life in Christ Jesus in which we cease being slaves of sin and become instead the slaves of righteousness. We now yield our members to righteousness in order to be sanctified and the end of that SANCTIFICATION is ETERNAL LIFE.
It can clearly be seen that in St. Paul's view, justification per se was more than merely some forensic declaration. It was a state of being that began with Baptism and came to its full fruition in righteous living (sanctification) which was the basis for our hope in eternal life with God.
The Catholic Tradition taught this quite clearly. It was recognized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on Romans that justification was a product of a saving faith composed of three elements:
1) Believing about Christ - Faith properly so-called
2) Believing in Christ - Hope
3) Believing into Christ - Charity
He saw this as the natural progression from a mere intellectual belief , to a heartfelt personal understanding, and finally a life commitment. Note that these are the Three Theological Virtues from 1Corinthians 13 understood as the logical progression of an ever deepening act of faith.
(H. Richard Neibhur would label these three elements of a saving faith asFides, Fiducia, and Fidelius. I like these labels because they emphasize that the Theological virtues can only be properly understood as types of of faith.)
So for the Fathers and Doctors a saving Christan faith had three elements: intellectual, affective, and volitional. But this was ONE act of faith taken to its logical conclusion. If one really believes the promises of God, he not only trusts in them but acts in light of them. So good works are the result of volitional acts of faith and a true saving faith is incomplete without them (See James 2:22).
Luther would have none of it. For him, the act of faith was a trusting belief in God's promises of forgiveness alone without any volitional component. Any "good works" which resulted were the external by-product of the internal "saving" faith. In essence, salvation became intensely subjective and personal to the exclusion of any objective or interpersonal elements. And internal moral regeneration as the foundation of righteousness was excluded. Sanctification was a process that followed after forensic justification and contributed nothing to salvation.
Recognizing this, evangelical Anglican and Oxford Professor Alister McGrath wrote at the conclusion of his book IUSTITIA DEI: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge Univ Press, 1986), Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 19 --
"The significance of the Protestant distinction between -iustificatio- and -regeneratio- is that a FUNDAMENTAL DISCONTINUITY has been introduced into the western theological tradition WHERE NONE HAD EXISTED BEFORE [emphasis by McGrath]."
"However, it will be clear that the medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, where the Reformers departed from it."
"The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between JUSTIFICATION and REGENERATION. Although it must be emphasised that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the -ordo salutis- [the order of salvation], the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine."
"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed or ever been contemplated before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification -- as opposed to its mode -- must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
"However, it will be clear that the medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, where the Reformers departed from it."
"The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between JUSTIFICATION and REGENERATION. Although it must be emphasised that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the -ordo salutis- [the order of salvation], the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine."
"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed or ever been contemplated before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification -- as opposed to its mode -- must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
Catholicism is not the only church that teaches this, the minority is the majority in places like this.
Due to the overwhelming amount of walls of text you continually post despite complaining about them from others, I will edit your post to just this blatantly erroneous statement from you.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from
yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
Why do you deny what Scripture so clearly teaches?
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from
yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
Why do you deny what Scripture so clearly teaches?
The most crucial problem with the Roman Catholic Church is its belief that faith alone in Christ is not sufficient for salvation. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc.
Well, if a person does sincerely believe in Jesus then he WILL be baptized and he WILL receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments and he WILL obey the decrees of a particular Evangelical Denomination and he WILL perform meritorious works and he is UNLIKELY to die with any mortal sins and he WILL etc., etc., etc.
Thus there is not much difference between Catholicism and Evangelicals
Well, if a person does sincerely believe in Jesus then he WILL be baptized and he WILL receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments and he WILL obey the decrees of a particular Evangelical Denomination and he WILL perform meritorious works and he is UNLIKELY to die with any mortal sins and he WILL etc., etc., etc.
Thus there is not much difference between Catholicism and Evangelicals
I don't recall complaining about others walls of text, if I have please quote me. This is not the first time you have pointed out my alleged complaining of others.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from
yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.
"works" in this verse has nothing to do with good works. Paul is talking about works of the law.
II. Works of Law versus Good Works
Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; Eph. 2:8-9 - many Protestants err in their understanding of what Paul means by "works of the law” in his teaching on justification. Paul’s teaching that we are not justified by “works of the law” refer to the law of Moses or to any legal system that makes God our debtor. They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. This makes sense when we remember that Paul's mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the "works of the law." Here is the proof:
James 2:24 – compare the verse “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” to Gal. 2:16 – “a man is not justified by works of the law,” and Rom. 3:20,28 – “no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law.” James 2:24 appears to be inconsistent with Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28 until one realizes that the Word of God cannot contradict itself. This means that the “works” in James 2:24 are different from the “works of the law in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28. James is referring to “good works” (e.g.,clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the “Mosaic law” (which included both the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to give us payment. Here is more proof:
Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 - Paul's phrase for "works of the law" in the Greek is "ergon nomou" which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent ("hrvt ysm") meaning "deeds of the law," or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use "ergon nomou." He uses "ergois agathois." Therefore, Paul’s "works of the law" and James' "works" are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.
Scripture Catholic - JUSTIFICATION
Why do you deny what Scripture so clearly teaches?
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from
yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.
"works" in this verse has nothing to do with good works. Paul is talking about works of the law.
II. Works of Law versus Good Works
Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; Eph. 2:8-9 - many Protestants err in their understanding of what Paul means by "works of the law” in his teaching on justification. Paul’s teaching that we are not justified by “works of the law” refer to the law of Moses or to any legal system that makes God our debtor. They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. This makes sense when we remember that Paul's mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the "works of the law." Here is the proof:
James 2:24 – compare the verse “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” to Gal. 2:16 – “a man is not justified by works of the law,” and Rom. 3:20,28 – “no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law.” James 2:24 appears to be inconsistent with Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28 until one realizes that the Word of God cannot contradict itself. This means that the “works” in James 2:24 are different from the “works of the law in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28. James is referring to “good works” (e.g.,clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the “Mosaic law” (which included both the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to give us payment. Here is more proof:
Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 - Paul's phrase for "works of the law" in the Greek is "ergon nomou" which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent ("hrvt ysm") meaning "deeds of the law," or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use "ergon nomou." He uses "ergois agathois." Therefore, Paul’s "works of the law" and James' "works" are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.
Scripture Catholic - JUSTIFICATION
Why do you deny what Scripture so clearly teaches?
Catholics do believe that faith alone in Christ IS sufficient for salvation, the difference is the sense in which "faith" is used. Scroll up. I see no need to repeat myself 4 times. If the Evangelical means faith+hope+ love, it is perfectly acceptable to a Catholic. If faith is separate from hope and love, it is a heresy. It's putting faith in your faith. My personal experience in the real world, Evangelicals don't do good works because it flows from their faith, they do good works because they love themselves and their neighbor for the love of God. So I wholeheartedly agree with you, there is not much difference.