A constructive dialogue between Protestants and Catholics

[Contarini]

In your own words, say who you are, what your theological viewpoint is, and then define any or all of the following words:

Edwin Tait, Episcopalian with a Wesleyan theological background.

baptism

The sacrament of initiation (involving water and the name of the Trinity, and administered to persons of any age), by means of which the Holy Spirit washes away the sins of those who believe (i.e., those who do not stubbornly disbelieve) and grants them eternal life.

faith

Strictly and properly, Christian faith is a gift of God by which human beings receive God’s promise of salvation in Jesus Christ and commit themselves entirely to God’s mercy. Any person who has such faith at the time of death will be saved, but faith can be lost through deliberate persistence in serious sin (such deliberate and unrepentant sin being incompatible with the gift of faith).

The word can also be used more broadly to denote any firm belief, particularly in religious matters. This is the “faith of demons” to which St. James refers, and is the faith held by those who persist in serious sin but who for whatever reason also believe in the truth of Christian doctrine. It is of course a good thing, but not a supernatural gift of God (any more than any other true opinion is) and not of salvific value in itself.

grace

God’s gracious favor toward us in imparting His own life to us through the power of the Holy Spirit by means of the saving work of Christ.

good works

In a Christian and theological sense, good works are any action done in and through us by God’s grace and with the cooperation of our free will. Because we are imperfect creatures and the gift of eternal life is as infinite as God Himself, these good works cannot properly be said to merit eternal life, but they are the evidence of God’s grace and as such are fittingly rewarded with eternal life at the final judgment.

salvation

The participation of human beings in the divine life by the power of the Holy Spirit through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

righteousness

Conformity of the human will to the moral requirements of God’s law. It also has a judicial aspect, inasmuch as God can be understood to declare us to be righteous or unrighteous according as our wills are or are not conformed to His law. The term “justification” (which you do not list) denotes the forgiveness of our sins, which conforms us judicially to the requirements of God’s law (since our former transgressions against that law have been forgiven). Repentance and the gift of new life are necessary preconditions for justification (in other words, it does not take place in the absence of a real though imperfect conformity of our wills to God’s law).

sanctification

The process by which human beings become (through the working of the Holy Spirit) fully and intrinsically righteous and holy. (“Holiness” refers to the sharing in God’s life, which includes but goes beyond the strictly moral and legal connotations of “righteousness.”) It is possible (though rare) for a Christian to be “entirely sanctified” in this life, in the very narrow and limited sense that such a person’s habitual desires and inclinations are fully infused with God’s life, so that righteousness becomes “second nature” and is no longer a matter of continual struggle with a cycle of sin and repentance.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[grandfather]

I drive a '97 Saturn.

I am a staunch believer in “Once Washed, Always Washed”.

Unfortunately, even covering my car with a car cover isn’t sufficient to make it pleasing in the sight of She Who Must Be Obeyed.

Before she will deign to interact with my car, it must be purged of uncleanliness.

Teflon, Thanks you made me and the boss laugh. She thought you are very funny.

 

[grandfather]

Salvation is not a thing. It is a state of being as the result of action.

 

[grandfather]

Hi Grandfather,
The “dung-heap covered with snow” phrase has never been linked to Luther, though similar phrases have been linked to others. Now, Luther did say:

It would be difficult for me to find the reference, but I read it more than once in both Catholic and Lutheran sources as coming from Luther.

 

[JonNC]

It would be difficult for me to find the reference, but I read it more than once in both Catholic and Lutheran sources as coming from Luther.

In this link, the meaning and source is discussed. There is a quote from Lutheran-turned-Catholic writer William Cork.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/has-martin-luthers-snow-covered.html

Jon

 

[SilentKnight]

SilentKnight;3727005:

SK,
We are told often in scripture by Christ himself and by St. Paul that it is faith in Christ that saves us, by His own merit through His suffering, death, and resurrection (Romans 1 and 3, and John 3, etc.) Righteousness is not imputed (and I assume not infused in the Catholic view) to those who do not have faith (and are not baptized).

Jon

Hi Jon,

Yes, but I was hoping you might be able to elaborate on why. What I’m getting at is that if salvation is truly** solely** because of Jesus, then his perfect merits should apply to all. What makes me any different from the Buddhist or the Muslim or the atheist down the street in terms of salvation? Your presumed answer would be that I believe in Christ.

But I have two concerns with this answer:

#1 the book of James mentions demons “believing” as well and they are obviously not saved. So what’s the difference between them and us?

#2 So, I “believe”. So what? What is it about “belief” in a believer that effects salvation, the absence of which prevents salvation? If salvation is a strict matter of us owing a debt and Christ paying that debt in full…What does it matter whether I have lots of faith, little faith or no faith at all? Know what I mean?

And further - this question came to mind only now as I type number 2 - If salvation is a matter of us owing a debt and Christ paying that debt in full…how is it that sin cannot be removed from the sinner? Doesn’t seem like the debt is really taken care of if the bill permanently remains?

Curious…

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

The other day, I filled up my car with gas. As a result, the station offered me a discount on an automatic car wash, so I bought it thinking that my wife’s car was dirty. I paid the price for the cleansing of her dirty car.

Of course, she still had to take her car to the station and run it through the car wash.

The price was paid, but the wash still had to be applied to my wife’s vehicle.

Yep…that’s what happened, alright.

Very good analogy. I’ll try and come back to this in a post of my own in a bit here…

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

Deleted.

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

I drive a '97 Saturn.

I am a staunch believer in “Once Washed, Always Washed”.

Unfortunately, even covering my car with a car cover isn’t sufficient to make it pleasing in the sight of She Who Must Be Obeyed.

Before she will deign to interact with my car, it must be purged of uncleanliness.

LOL!

Awesome…

SK

 

[grandfather]

grandfather;3727983:

Grandfather,

Try and remember this is an amicable Protestant-Catholic thread.

SK

One of the difficulties with script is that it is difficult to convey tone. I am not riduculing or hostile, but pleading. We should be one and we are straining at gnats.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC;3727748:

Hi Jon,

Yes, but I was hoping you might be able to elaborate on why. What I’m getting at is that if salvation is truly** solely**

because of Jesus, then his perfect merits should apply to all. What makes me any different from the Buddhist or the Muslim or the atheist down the street in terms of salvation? Your presumed answer would be that I believe in Christ.

But I have two concerns with this answer:

#1 the book of James mentions demons “believing” as well and they are obviously not saved. So what’s the difference between them and us?

#2 So, I “believe”. So what? What is it about “belief” in a believer that effects salvation, the absence of which prevents salvation? If salvation is a strict matter of us owing a debt and Christ paying that debt in full…What does it matter whether I have lots of faith, little faith or no faith at all? Know what I mean?

And further - this question came to mind only now as I type number 2 - If salvation is a matter of us owing a debt and Christ paying that debt in full…how is it that sin cannot be removed from the sinner? Doesn’t seem like the debt is really taken care of if the bill permanently remains?

Curious…

SK

Ahh, SK, methinks I know where you are leading in this.
So, let’s see.

#1 the book of James mentions demons “believing” as well and they are obviously not saved. So what’s the difference between them and us?
#2 So, I “believe”. So what? What is it about “belief” in a believer that effects salvation, the absence of which prevents salvation? If salvation is a strict matter of us owing a debt and Christ paying that debt in full…What does it matter whether I have lots of faith, little faith or no faith at all? Know what I mean?

Believing and having faith. Demons believe, to their terror and trembling. You and I have faith, to our hope and joy. Or should I say, our hope and charity. We as Christians show our faith in how we respond.

And further - this question came to mind only now as I type number 2 - If salvation is a matter of us owing a debt and Christ paying that debt in full…how is it that sin cannot be removed from the sinner? Doesn’t seem like the debt is really taken care of if the bill permanently remains?

Oh, but it is! The HS leads us through our sanctification, our growth in His grace. And even though our sinful nature remains, slowly, gradually, and yes usually imperfectly, our nature changes. We are transformed to do the good works that God wants us to do. In sanctification, we change our relationship with God, and with our world.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

SilentKnight;3728450:

One of the difficulties with script is that it is difficult to convey tone. I am not riduculing or hostile, but pleading. We should be one and we are straining at gnats.

I think that that is the intent of this thread; to see what are gnats, and what are not. I agree, we should be one.

Jon

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon, Thanks you made me and the boss laugh. She thought you are very funny.

 

[Odell]

I want to add one more if I may. How do both sides view Original Sin?

Flame,

Question for you both. What scripture verses support the idea that sin cannot be removed from the sinner? And in what sense is a saved sinner “sanctified”?

SK

I dont remember this being answered but I would like to add to that

Rom 4: 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7"BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8"BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT." [Psalm 32]

Mat 23: 25"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26"You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. **27"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28"So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. **

Luke 11: 39But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness. 40"You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also? 41"But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you.

John 1:29 - Jesus the Lamb of God literally takes away the sin of the world. He does not just cover up the sins of the world.

2 Cor. 5:17 - Paul says that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. He is not just the old creation that is covered up. The old has passed away, and behold, the new has come.

Romans 4:5 is a protestant favorite. It might be hard to see, but here is how Protestants interpret it: God “justifies the wicked” in that the sinner’s faith results in Christ’s Righteousness imputed unto the wicked man, making him appear righteous, and thus God “declares righteous” the wicked man. The problems with this interpretation should be obvious:
First, God is essentially telling a lie, He is calling something righteous which He knows is not actually righteous. Look at the Matthew 23 and Luke 11 passages quoted above. Jesus explicitly condemns the idea of appearing righteous on the outside while leaving the inside filthy. Does it make sense for God to declare a unrighteous soul to be righteous because they “appear righteous” on the outside but in fact their soul is actually unrighteous? Catholics and the Scriptures clearly say such a teaching is unacceptable and even abominable.
Second, there is no such concept as “Christ’s Righteousness” here or in the context, it is essentially pulled out of thin air. We would imagine a clear reference to “Christ’s Righteousness” mentioned somewhere in the context (or even in the New Testament), yet this concept and phrase are not to be found and applied in the manner Protestants claim. This is also unacceptable and un-Biblical by definition.
Lastly, it fails to take into account how “justify” is used in the New Testament, especially the sanctification component (see Rom 5:9; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:4-7; etc) which would mean the “wicked” is made righteous. Notice how Ps 32 is mentioned here, this Psalm was already discussed above and it was shown that David’s repentance in this Psalm (32:1-5) resulted in him being righteous again. Also note how the Matthew and Luke passages above indicate the need to make righteous again.

Just some thoughts
from catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm

 

[SilentKnight]

Ok, Jon. I have to admit at this point to being a little lost. Sorry. Just as too many cooks spoil the broth, so too many theological vantage points spoil the concord.

Not quite sure of how to proceed…

(As we do - or don’t - wanted to mention as a quick PSA that there seems to be some trouble with quoting at the moment. For some reason, when one person is quoted, it’s another that the quote is attributed to. Please note and try to correct accordingly…)

SK

 

[expectthebest]

grandfather;3728465:

I think that that is the intent of this thread; to see what are gnats, and what are not. I agree, we should be one.

Jon

This is certainly a very interesting thread, to see where the small differences are. I hate to be negative, but in the end, if protestants don’t agree with the “gnats” of Catholic teaching, there will not be reconcilliation with the Church. In the view of the Church, either protestants agree 100% with the Church or they don’t. There is no in between. I often think that people see discussions between the Catholic and protestant leadership as something where everyone can come to an understanding and give a little to get to a middle ground. This will not happen. It’s the Catholic way or the highway. The Church does not allow its followers to think on their own. What is defined is defined and that’s the end of it. Right?

 

[expectthebest]

Viewing the definitions given above, one will note the similarities between the Catholic virtue of hope and the common Protestant definition of faith; that is, an unconditional trust in Jesus Christ and reliance on the Holy Spirit instead of on one’s own strength. At the same time, Protestants should have no problem accepting the idea that faith—as they define it—must also contain the intellectual assent to God that Catholics call faith since they should agree that a person with saving faith must believe whatever God says. Thus, the Protestant idea of faith includes what Catholics call faith (intellectual assent) and what Catholics call hope (trust in God).

It seems to me that hope means something totally different from my studies of protestant thinking on the matter. A protestant would believe that there is always hope as long as the person is sorry for their sins. A Catholic believes there is hope only if one is not in mortal sin. For this person, there is no hope to trust in, unless confession can be reached before death. The Catholic doesn’t believe there is even hope to trust in that God would help them get to confession before death, even if they are sorry. Therefore, for a protestant, there is always hope. For a Catholic, mortal sin negates all trust in hope. I think this is a very large difference which is very directly related to salvation. This is certainly no “gnat”.

 

[SilentKnight]

(In response to post #76)

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…Yes…And no.

In the Catholic Church, we don’t play “Choose Your Own Theology”, no. The deposit of faith doesn’t work that way. It is what it is and our response it either to accept or reject. Period. In one sense.

In another, though, we do well to recognize that just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there is more than one way to describe the same reality. Because this is true and because we all too often fail to recognize this and end up in endless divisions accordingly, it is necessary from time to time to - at the very least - talk about or differences to make sure that they really are that - sbstantive differences, not mere differences in verbage. *

And* it is within this dialogue that we not only clarify our and our “opponent’s” position, we also tend to learn new things and come to new appreciations as well. (For example, Protestants tend to think that there is no scriptural evidence for Purgatory. When we engage in these types of dialogues, we can show them there is. Catholics, on the other hand, have traditionally tended to disregard scripture in favor of things like papal decrees or citations from the Catechism [which don’t ‘compute’ in most Protestant minds]. Dialoguing with Protestants has given myself and many others a renewed appreciated for God’s written Word.)

Further, the very act of dialoguing itself says that “I respect you in spite of our differences. I wish things were different.” Rather than, “We’re right. You’re wrong. Kneel down and kiss my feet or go away.”

Does that help to clarify?

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

It seems to me that hope means something totally different from my studies of protestant thinking on the matter. A protestant would believe that there is always hope as long as the person is sorry for their sins. A Catholic believes there is hope only if one is not in mortal sin. For this person, there is no hope to trust in, unless confession can be reached before death. The Catholic doesn’t believe there is even hope to trust in that God would help them get to confession before death, even if they are sorry. Therefore, for a protestant, there is always hope. For a Catholic, mortal sin negates all trust in hope. I think this is a very large difference which is very directly related to salvation. This is certainly no “gnat”.

And it is certainly an unfortunate misunderstanding on your part as well. May I ask what gives you the impression that Catholics believe there is “no hope” for those who are in mortal sin?

Yes, Church teaching is that Catholics must confess all mortal sins - to the extent that they are able. There are many good reasons for this. To the extent that the person is unable (i.e. nearing death without a priest around), sorrow for those sins is sufficient.

SK

 

[Teflon93]

JonNC;3728697:

This is certainly a very interesting thread, to see where the small differences are. I hate to be negative, but in the end, if protestants don’t agree with the “gnats” of Catholic teaching, there will not be reconcilliation with the Church. In the view of the Church, either protestants agree 100% with the Church or they don’t. There is no in between. I often think that people see discussions between the Catholic and protestant leadership as something where everyone can come to an understanding and give a little to get to a middle ground. This will not happen. It’s the Catholic way or the highway. The Church does not allow its followers to think on their own. What is defined is defined and that’s the end of it. Right?

You don’t know many Catholics, do you?