re your statement: I was only trying as a protestant to shine the light of God’s word, scripture only, as far as I can in a friendly discussion.

I left protestantism because of the failure of protestantism to recognize the light shed by God’s word, scripture. I left because Jesus’ words were ignored or denied, and we are talking about the plain words of Jesus. At the end of the bread of life discourse in John 6, a lot of disciples leave Jesus because they clearly understand what He is saying. The current protestant position, especially in but not limited to evangelicalism, is what caused those people to leave Jesus. He was in the act of fulfilling the Passover, will become the Passover meal (as the Lamb of God), and will be the Manna in the desert. He is (at this point) in the process becoming the only Food capable of a supernatural journey to a supernatural Location. He feeds us with Himself. He is Reality, not a mere symbol. He is not limited in the ways men are limited. If God could become a Man, could He not come to us as Food, replacing the bread-ness of bread with His Body, and the wine-ness of wine with His Blood? The Scripture behind which He is the ultimate Author says that is exactly what He does.

“Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whose sins you retain, they are retained.” How many protestants go to confession for the forgiveness of sins? How many even recognize John 20:23? My impression of protestant confession is that people left themselves open to blackmail. I would hardly confess to most of my peers when I was protestant. I’d be afraid, and there was nothing they could do in regard to my being forgiven. They had no authority.

Jesus established a Church against which the gates of Hell would not prevail. How many protestant churches establish their position by presuming that Hell prevailed and that Jesus was unable to maintain His Church in the face of His enemy? All of protestantism is contingent on the narrative that Jesus was not able to maintain His Church so it needed to be re-formed or re-instituted.

In practical fact, how many protestant churches establish themselves by claiming that the preceding protestant church failed and that they needed to “reform” the failure of their predecessors? In my old parlance, “God, give us a revival!!” Yet why would He revive something that He did not start, and something that competes with His Church and His message? Or as scripture notes, “Did God really say…?” When I was leaving protestantism, looking back, that is what rang in my head. I could not find a justification for remaining where I was because God really did say something about the Church He established. I was outside of that Church, in denial of what He had done, and I could see it clearly in scripture. “Did God really say” was the formula for rebellion. I had no heart to be a rebel.

I saw in Jesus’ establishment of His Church the fulfillment of both the Temple (sacrifice, priesthood and rites) and of Israel (the kingdom). Both were extended outward worldwide, bringing the only acceptable Sacrifice and a supranational Kingdom to everyone who responds to His call. The Sacrifice was not confined to a temple in Jerusalem, and the Church was above any nation while existing in any nation to which she was given entry.

I left protestantism because it failed to shine God’s light, based on scripture, to the very people it claimed to help. It did so by plainly ignoring scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments, but again especially Jesus’ own words.

I started out with a conversion, loving and wanting to serve our Lord. I was given a second conversion to the Church He established, with the sacraments provided to empower and strengthen me to live out the call to conversion seen in scripture. I was not always Catholic but, like Peter, I find that there is nowhere else to go.

I am not a pastor. I am lay Catholic. I make no special claims about my status other than claiming to be Catholic. It is sufficient. It is the will of God for me and obedience makes its claim in my mind and on my heart. I have scriptural warrant for the Catholic positions and am capable of presenting them whenever I am required (or given the opportunity) to do so. Scripture is not my enemy or my bugaboo. It is the Book of the Church of which I am a son. I have no hesitation letting the words of that Book shine in the souls of men.

Cordially,

dt

You wrote:

I was speaking of Christ as the head of the church, our only master as against those who make statements claiming to be infallible, namely your pope or magesterium.

The Scripture does not say “Obey your leaders and submit to them only if they do not teach that they are protected from error by the Holy Spirit when, in communion among themselves and with Peter or his successors, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held in matters of faith and morals.” So you are adding to Scripture if you think that Scripture teaches that we have a right or duty to rebel against the leaders Christ Himself established if they teach that Christ gave to the magisterium of His Church a charism of infallibility.

We submit to leaders, with reference to faith and beliefs, ( I myself am a leader, a pastor) only as they subscribe to the authoritative Word of God. Did not Paul tell his followers this in Galatians 1:8, 9?

Regarding Galatians 1:8-9, see the last two paragraphs of section XI, i.e. “XI. The Authority of the Magisterium in Relation to Scripture.”

If you are a pastor, then from whom did the persons who ordained you receive the authority to ordain you? In other words, what makes your ordination valid, and not invalid? This is an important question, because you don’t want to be the people Jesus describes in John 10:1.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

You can read about the “Catholic” Church here (Christian Classics Ethereal Library-put together by Protestants–you can also find anti-Catholic stuff on the site). St. Ignatius used the term, and he was a contemporary of the Apostles. In fact, he used the term on route to being martyred. The word “Christian” was invented by the pagans to describe followers of Christ. We wear that title proudly (as Scripture says: 1 Peter 4:16) because we suffer for it. The term “Catholic” was developed by the Christian Church to describe those who were a part of the Apostolic Church as apposed to those who were schismatic. You reference the churches the empire persecuted. What churches do you have in mind in the 4th century (Donatist, Arian)? Were you maybe thinking about the Persian persecution that Constantine hoped to subdue?

All that aside, these historical caricatures do not help Catholic and Protestant dialog–and if you noticed by the title of this blog, that is the point; which is rather perspicuous.

Re #103

You said: Steve, (reply to 96): Steve, I must protest!

My reply: It’s Greg. Not Steve. I was responding to Steve in my post. ;-)

You said: Catholics do not believe that a person is saved by faith in Christ alone. That is simply not true.

My reply: It simply is true, Ron, the way you worded it. It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that Jesus is the only name by which we are saved. Not Buddha’s, not Ghandi’s, etc. Jesus alone. It is, of course, NOT a dogma of the Catholic faith that we are saved by FAITH ALONE in Christ. (Not the wording you used.) The idea that (most) men are saved by faith alone in Christ is explicitly contrary to Scripture (James 2:24, for example) which states that a man is justified before God by what he does and NOT by faith alone. Why? Because, as 1 John 3:7 explains, it is he who does what is righteous who IS righteous, and it’s only the righteous, Revelation tells us (Rev.21:27) , who are allowed to enter Heaven.

You said: Catholics believe that penance, and every mandated work are a necessary adjunct to one’s salvation.

My reply: Why do you think we believe that? And what happens when we disobey God?

You said: Catholics seem to miss the fine but important line between Christ’s gift of salvation and the works seen in a believer’s life.

My reply: Perhaps that’s because, in the on-going sense of the word salvation (not the past tense initial moment sense), there is no line. Scripture doesn’t recognize one. We are saved by love FOR love. If we then DO love after we are saved, then we stay saved and increase our salvation in the sense of maturing, or growing more deeply, in it. If we do not “do love” after being saved, what are we but worthy of being cut off and thrown into the fire? (Matt 3:10)

You said: We protestants believe that works are good and important, but they cannot and will never work towards our salvation.

My reply: Not the initial grace of salvation, no. But you have to distinguish between the initial grace of salvation and the on-going process (referenced by multiple scriptures in my last post [#96]), or our conversation will never get anywhere.

You said: Works are the flip-side of salvation by Christ through faith. In other words, because we have surrendered our lives to the Saviour, and because he through the Holy Spirit has entered our lives we do the works of the Spirit, meaning that through the Holy Spirit in us we are led to obedience, whatever it takes. This is very different from saying that our works save us.

My reply: So, if a man is saved and then he does the works of God after his salvation, what is the consequence? If a man is saved and then declines to do the works of God (or, in other words, allows himself to fall back into sin), what is the consequence?

If the consequence of A is that that man is ultimately going to go to Heaven and the consequence of B is that the man is ultimately going to go to hell, then, like it or not, the obvious fact of the matter is that our actions DO play a role (however infinitely subordinate to the grace won for us by Christ) in “saving” us (IOW, ultimately getting us to Heaven). In addition to Scripture, logic demands it.

You said: As James says, works demonstrate our acceptance of the salvation; and without these acts of obedience it demonstrates that we have not accepted the gift of salvation that Christ offers. This is what Paul meant when he said: ‘do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid. We establish the law.’ Rom.3:31.

My reply: An interesting scriptural and conceptual reference to which I would heartily agree! And after agreeing, I am compelled to sort of just sit here and wait to see if you realize what you just said…?

It’s not faith OR the law. It’s the Law demonstrated IN/BY FAITH. It’s not faith in Christ alone that saves by rather faith WORKING through love. As the book of James notes (paraphrased), “You believe. That’s nice. So do the demons…If you want to actually be saved, PUT THAT FAITH INTO PRACTICE.”

You said: This obedience is free and not involuntary. Just as acceptance of the gift of salvation, so is the decision to allow the Holy Spirit to produce good works in us. And of course the HS does not force us; we are not robots, we willingly (sometimes very hard) condescend to do acts of goodness.

My reply: I’m glad to hear you say we are free to obey God or not (subsequent to being saved) because, above, you say something that makes it sound like we are always going to obey God after being saved, no matter what. As if we have no choice in the matter.

Thus far, you and I have been putting this in black and white terms for the sake of convenience. But at this point, it’s important to appreciate the fact that it never works like that. How many people do you know who have never sinned after being saved, who have obeyed God in every single command after they came to Christ? Probably somewhere around the same number of people I know who have done the same – ZERO.

The real life of every Christian involves many, many peaks and valleys, triumphs and tragedies. It is he who perseveres to the end, scripture tells us who is saved, not the one who prayed a 3 second sinner’s prayer 30 years ago and let it all go after that. (See basically all of Matt 24.) Why? It’s very simple. Because, again, love is our salvation. When we are saved, we are able to love now, but love remains free. And if, at any point, we choose freely to reject love, to commit serious sin and foresake God, we can do that and we lose what Catholics call “sanctifying grace”, or “the ability to love” and we become “cold” again, without God’s Spirit. If we repent and confess, we can gain the Holy Spirit back again. This is why good works are so important. To confirm, as Peter says, our call and election. (2 Peter 1:10)

They arent done to “score points” with God who is somehow impressed by them enough to say, “Hey, I kinda like you. I guess you’ve done enough to get yourself a free pass to Heaven.” They’re done as a secondary, conditional response to God who first loved us and poured our grace into our hearts. These works are entirely secondary to His grace, but also entirely required for entrance into Heaven simply because they confirm in us (or alter) our yes to His initial act of Love.

You said: Again, Steve, what you fail to see or understand, is that we protestants believe that the doing of good works through the Holy Spirit is not what saves us! These are the fruit of our being saved.

My reply: I dont fail to see that at all. I recognize that that’s what you believe. I also recognize that that is neither what scripture teaches nor what your conscience tells you. ;-)

You said: While the two are connected it is only because of the gift of salvation that we are filled with the Spirit willingly, and therefore we produce good works. This distinction must be maintained.

My reply: Right! I maintain it! (See above.) :-)

You said: Even Jesus said of those who said, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not done…’ I profess I have not known you.’ Mat. 7:22, 23. We do not decry or discount works, no. However, we put works into its rightful category, the fruit of the Spirit’s working in us! Christ saves, the Holy Spirit transforms! And we obey! All because of God’s marvelous gift in Christ.

My reply: Right! Exactly!…But what about when we don’t? You have admitted that that obedience is free. Surely, you don’t need any help realizing that no one executes it perfectly. If they did, there would be no ned for the multiple admonitions of scriptures against receiving the grace of God in vein.

In closing, don’t forget the verse immediately above Matt 7:22-23, Matt 7:21…

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ (Greg’s note: In other words, not everyone who has faith alone) will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who DOES the will of my Father (Greg’s note: aka, good works) in heaven.”

Peace.

But do not forget the ex-cathedra statements of your pope I referred to.

I must have missed this point. I haven’t actually seen you mention any ex-cathedra statements. I only recall you mention that there are in fact statements described as being ex-cathedra.

Having different interpretation is of course beside the point.

I’m sorry, but it really isn’t beside the point. It is front and center.

What about Augustine? or Kemphis? or Assissi? And the many other? Any divisions there? Are you aware of the divisions that exist in the RCC today? Have we not been exposed to several of them recently in the news? D & P? Abortion? homosexuality? Etc? How does North American practice differ from European or South American or African in your church?

I don’t know of any “divisions” among the three you mention. Feel free to educate me.

I think you’re missing my point, though. I believe that heresy exists. I believe there are heretics. But the Catholic Church’s teaching on Abortion, Homosexuality and all of the et ceteras you might list is clear and is the same in North America, Europe, and South America and anywhere else that you find visible unity with Rome.

My point is that a Catholic who does not submit to his leaders is in a completely different situation from a protestant who reaches false conclusions through his own interpretation of the Bible.

However, my friends, I am sorry if I rumpled your feathers too much. I was only trying as a protestant to shine the light of God’s word, scripture only, as far as I can in a friendly discussion.

I was just trying to do you a favor by drawing your attention to the fact that most of the objections you have raised have already been dealt with in other places.

I hope you will respond to Bryan Cross’ post as well.

We therefore do not doubt for one second that it is the ‘inerrant’ source we can go to

Catholics also believe Scripture is inerrant, Ron. That is not what I asked Steve G to address. I asked HOW do you know the Canon of Scripture — the particular books — are exactly those which God willed us to have, and therefore the inerrant Word of God given to men by the Holy Spirit?

For example, you and I would no doubt agree that the Gospel of Thomas does not belong in the Canon. Who had the authority to declare it non-canonical? How do we both know that authority can be believed? It is because Jesus gave to his Apostles the Deposit of Faith, which he charged them to protect from error — AND also gave them the guidance of the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit. And the Apostles handed on, free from error thanks to this protection of the Holy Spirit, the Deposit of Faith they received from Jesus to their disciples and successors, and they to theirs, and so on until the time the Canon of Scripture was infallibly settled in the late 4th century. Would Jesus have had it otherwise — would he have left it to chance or the holiness of individual men to guarantee the faithful transmission of his revelation? Accepting this paradigm is a profound act of faith in Jesus — one that Protestants seem unwilling to make.

Who were these disciples and successors? Men such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius – all Bishops of the Catholic Church, who all believed in core Catholic doctrines of the Real Presence, the Primacy of the Chair of Peter, and the hierarchical Church as established through the Apostles. It is because the Early Church Fathers were given authority by Jesus himself through Apostolic Succession that we can have absolute assurance that the Deposit of Faith (which includes but is not limited to the Canon of Scripture) was handed on, divinely protected from error.

Scripture cannot testify to its own inerrancy, only an external authority can do that. If you and I disagree about the length of a piece of lumber, do we use another piece of lumber to verify the length of the first one? No, we consult an external authority — a tape measure. And while the analogy is not an exact one, it makes the point that Scripture cannot possibly testify as to its own inerrancy unless you first know what is and what is not Scripture (the Canon).

It appears from others of your comments that your source of knowledge about the Catholic Church is not an objective one. Otherwise you would know the Magisterium adds nothing to the Deposit of Faith — its mission is to guard it from error, both in content and interpretation. The Pope’s ex cathedra statements carry the binding force of orthodoxy not because the Pope says so, but because Jesus said so when he spoke to Peter:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Finally, you said:

If God’s word is not the test of faith and doctrine then what is?

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

Scripture itself tells us it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Pax Christi,
Frank