A simple argument refuting Faith Alone

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel,
Do you really beleive that having Faith is all that is required to go to heaven?

Yes, I do. (But I would qualify that simple answer with the insistence that we understand faith as being an ongoing trust in Jesus and that no one can have faith unless God first grants it, and that God grants faith only to those whom He intends to save.)

If you are a disciple of Jesus Christ, then you should recognize that in addition to Faith, he said that you need to be born again of water and spirit (John 3), that you needed to eat his body and drink his blood (John 6), that you needed to follow the commandments (Matthew 19 and its corrollaries in Mark and Luke), You need to do works of Mercy (Matthew 25) and you need to love (John 13).

There’s no check-list for salvation, Paul. That’s the very definition of legalism. Having started out in the Spirit, would you leave us with the flesh? (cf Galatians.). Besides, your list of requirements assumes a correct interpretation of the passages you mention. Naturally, I think there are other, more plausible ways of reading those texts. For example, nothing requires us to take John 3:5 as a reference to Baptism so that unless one is baptized on can’t go to heaven. Not even Rome teaches this since Rome says “baptism or its desire” in necessary for salvation, where the word “necessary” really means “normative.” For strictly speaking, even a good Buddhist or even an ethical atheist can be saved in the Roman system. It’s ironic that you add all kinds of extras to faith when your own church, strictly speaking, no longer teaches that explicit faith in Christ is a sine qua non for salvation! Nor does John 6:53 have to be read in light of the Eucharist, since no where does the gospel of John interpret these words in terms of the Lord’s supper. More likely, “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” are metaphors for belief in the crucified Christ whom our sins have pierced. Likewise, Jesus describes the true believer as the one who keeps the commandments. But nowhere does he make the keeping of these a prescription for salvation; rather keeping the commandments is descriptive of the believer. This echoes what Paul says about salvation being by grace through faith and not of our own works, but that we who are saved are to do the good works God has prepared for us in advance (cf Eph. 2:6-10).

Even in Romans, Paul is clear that you must do good works to get to heaven. Read Romans 2: 5-16. Sure, Faith is required as is Grace, but there is more to it than that.

There are several schools of thought on the correct interpretation of this verse. Since Rome hasn’t infallibly defined this passage, you have no apriori dogmatic reason to countenance only one possible view. That said, some argue that Paul is speaking hypothetically. Thus, were we to keep the law, seek immortality, and righteousness perfectly we could stand acquitted on the day of judgment. But since Paul goes on to say that “all have sinned” and that “none seek” these things, and that justification is by faith and not by “works of the law,” it makes far more sense that Paul doesn’t really believe that anyone attains salvation this way. Alternatively, some argue that Paul is speaking about believers and that they in deed can do these things (seek God, do righteous deeds etc) precisely because they’ve already been regenerated. “Immortality” is the end result, not because they earned this by doing good deeds, but because already-saved people will receive immortality and that because saved people do good deeds. However one comes down on this theory, no one, not even Rome, teaches that we are saved by our good deeds based on Romans 2.

What is NOT required, as Paul points out, is to be circumcized or to follow the other laws that designated Jews as the chosen race of the Old Covenant. This has been replaced with the new Covenant after Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice.

No. Paul is saying that nothing is required, not even good deeds. “Works of the law” cannot be confined to things like circumcision and sacrifices since the same law also enjoins upon us the highest ethical obligations and the love of neighbor. The same scriptures that say “offer a turtle dove” also says “love your neighbor.” Both are “works of the law” since these commandments come from the “Torah.” Thus Paul is saying that no work of the law is prescribed for salvation. Only grace through faith saves us. But those who have been saved obey the law–not in order to be saved, but because they already have been saved and so obey with a willingness heretofore impossible. For prior to regeneration, the law, while good and holy, actually causes the very sinfulness it is intended to prevent (see Romans 7).

Circumcision is replaced by baptism and those that are baptized are the new chosen race, which anyone can join…

Paul never says this about circumcision. Baptism may be truly analogous to circumcision, but nowhere does Paul say that baptism “replaces” it. Paul isn’t creating a new Christian legalism to take place of the old; rather he is careful to show how a life in Christ is the fulfillment of all that the Old looked forward to.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m glad Miguel has underscored the failure of “a simple argument refuting Faith alone.” There are NO simple arguments using Scripture proofs to validate or invalidate any doctrine whatever. Scripture was used by Satan to tempt Jesus to sin, and Scripture will continue to be stumbling block to the unbeliever.

The ONLY simple argument to Scripture proofs of doctrine is “by what authority” do you hold this interpretation of Scripture. Only by forcing the issue of authority can Scripture proofs of false doctrine be destroyed.

Every heretic from Cerinthus down to modern day born agains have interpreted Scripture using their own private judgment. Private judgment is at the root of all heresies, or mis-interpretations of Scripture.

There can never be any agreement on Scripture proofs without agreement on authority. That is why non-Catholic Christians are death on the argument of Authority, and why Catholics try with futility to use human logic to try and turn Scripture against the non-Catholic.

Until the non-Catholic Christian is able to realize that any doctrine whatever can easily be proved from Scripture, and really understands this truth, he will also continue to hold on to his interpretation irrationally thinking that no other can truly be proved. IOW, the non-Catholic Christian does not fathom the subtlety or obliqueness of Holy Scripture. Furthermore the non-Catholic Christian must finally realize that Holy Scripture was NEVER meant to be self-interpreting, neither in the OT or in the Christian era.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Miguel,
Do you really beleive that having Faith is all that is required to go to heaven?

Then you are playing directly into Satan’s hands. His is a very clever lie - making you beleive that you don’t have to do anything because you trust in Jesus, even when Jesus told you directly that more was required.

Quote:
If you are a disciple of Jesus Christ, then you should recognize that in addition to Faith, he said that you need to be born again of water and spirit (John 3), that you needed to eat his body and drink his blood (John 6), that you needed to follow the commandments (Matthew 19 and its corrollaries in Mark and Luke), You need to do works of Mercy (Matthew 25) and you need to love (John 13).

Another clever lie from Satan. When Jesus gives you a list of requirements, call it legalism and then you don’t have to follow what he says. In fact there are no laws. Laws are antiquated. Do what you feel is right - trust in God to save you. Can’t you see the trap Satan is laying out for you?

Having started out in the Spirit, would you leave us with the flesh? (cf Galatians.). Besides, your list of requirements assumes a correct interpretation of the passages you mention. Naturally, I think there are other, more plausible ways of reading those texts. For example, nothing requires us to take John 3:5 as a reference to Baptism so that unless one is baptized on can’t go to heaven. Not even Rome teaches this since Rome says “baptism or its desire” in necessary for salvation, where the word “necessary” really means “normative.”

No. The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is required. Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood are still baptism.

For strictly speaking, even a good Buddhist or even an ethical atheist can be saved in the Roman system. It’s ironic that you add all kinds of extras to faith when your own church, strictly speaking, no longer teaches that explicit faith in Christ is a sine qua non for salvation!

You are mislead. this is what the Catechism has to say on the matter:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Nor does John 6:53 have to be read in light of the Eucharist, since no where does the gospel of John interpret these words in terms of the Lord’s supper. More likely, “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” are metaphors for belief in the crucified Christ whom our sins have pierced. Likewise, Jesus describes the true believer as the one who keeps the commandments. But nowhere does he make the keeping of these a prescription for salvation; rather keeping the commandments is descriptive of the believer. This echoes what Paul says about salvation being by grace through faith and not of our own works, but that we who are saved are to do the good works God has prepared for us in advance (cf Eph. 2:6-10).

Miguel, just because your personal interpretation is different, doesnt’ change the truth of Jesus’ statement in John 6: 54:
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Even in Romans, Paul is clear that you must do good works to get to heaven. Read Romans 2: 5-16. Sure, Faith is required as is Grace, but there is more to it than that.

The Catholic Church teaches that you are saved by grace through faith. But then you must do the good works that you are called to do, to enter heaven. It would do you good to really understand what the Catholic Church really teaches. You are rebelling against something you don’t really understand.

Quote:
What is NOT required, as Paul points out, is to be circumcized or to follow the other laws that designated Jews as the chosen race of the Old Covenant. This has been replaced with the new Covenant after Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice.

The law absolutely does not cause sinfullness. This is another lie of SATAN. This is exacty what Peter warned about in 2Peter3:

15 nd consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

How do you reconcile your interpretation with these words from Our Lord himself from Matthew 19:
16 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”
17 He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19 honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"

Accept what Jesus teaches…Cease putting your faulty intepretations of Paul over the very clear teachings of Jesus.

Quote:
Circumcision is replaced by baptism and those that are baptized are the new chosen race, which anyone can join…

Again, with the Satanic lie of Legalism. - nothing is illegal, - do what you want!! I would hope you could see through that . Here’s the truth: The sacraments are physical signs of our covenant with God. If you choose not to follow them, you do so at your own peril

 

[paul_c]

I’m glad Miguel has underscored the failure of “a simple argument refuting Faith alone.” There are NO simple arguments using Scripture proofs to validate or invalidate any doctrine whatever. Scripture was used by Satan to tempt Jesus to sin, and Scripture will continue to be stumbling block to the unbeliever.

The ONLY simple argument to Scripture proofs of doctrine is “by what authority” do you hold this interpretation of Scripture. Only by forcing the issue of authority can Scripture proofs of false doctrine be destroyed.

Every heretic from Cerinthus down to modern day born agains have interpreted Scripture using their own private judgment. Private judgment is at the root of all heresies, or mis-interpretations of Scripture.

There can never be any agreement on Scripture proofs without agreement on authority. That is why non-Catholic Christians are death on the argument of Authority, and why Catholics try with futility to use human logic to try and turn Scripture against the non-Catholic.

Until the non-Catholic Christian is able to realize that any doctrine whatever can easily be proved from Scripture, and really understands this truth, he will also continue to hold on to his interpretation irrationally thinking that no other can truly be proved. IOW, the non-Catholic Christian does not fathom the subtlety or obliqueness of Holy Scripture. Furthermore the non-Catholic Christian must finally realize that Holy Scripture was NEVER meant to be self-interpreting, neither in the OT or in the Christian era.

Well stated. It IS about authority

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I’m glad Miguel has underscored the failure of “a simple argument refuting Faith alone.” There are NO simple arguments using Scripture proofs to validate or invalidate any doctrine whatever.

I think John 11:35, “Jesus wept,” proves the doctrine that Jesus had both tear ducts and feelings quite convincingly. Or am I guilty of using “private judgment” here and do I need an “infallible” declaration of the Roman Magisterium to be sure? (And then who interprets the infallible interpreter?)

Scripture was used by Satan to tempt Jesus to sin, and Scripture will continue to be stumbling block to the unbeliever.

What about the principle, abusus no tollit usum? (The abuse of scripture doesn’t negate the use of scripture.) Surely the fact that people, councils, and even popes have misused (even abused) scripture, doesn’t mean we can’t come to a plausible interpretation, right?

The ONLY simple argument to Scripture proofs of doctrine is “by what authority” do you hold this interpretation of Scripture. Only by forcing the issue of authority can Scripture proofs of false doctrine be destroyed.

But how would you begin to establish your authority principle without resorting to private, infallible interpretation? If I were to ask you how you know Rome is infallible, you’d likely cite texts such as “he who hears you hears me,” or “the Spirit will lead you to all truth,” etc. But if I were to further ask how do you know your interpretation of those texts is correct, well, you certainly couldn’t argue “Because Rome is infallible.” For that would in deed beg the biggest of all questions. In fact, since those are among the classic texts for infallibility, we could well ask IF those texts can bear the weight Rome’s apologists place upon them. In fact, not only are we not required to read such texts that way, we’re scarcely justified in doing so. For there is no evidence that Jesus has precisely and only the Roman Magisterium in mind when he made such promises.

Every heretic from Cerinthus down to modern day born agains have interpreted Scripture using their own private judgment.

Isn’t there something in the rules about calling your opponent a heretic?

Private judgment is at the root of all heresies, or mis-interpretations of Scripture.

So then why do you resort to it in coming up with your scriptural defenses of Magisterial authority?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Miguel Sastre:

I think John 11:35, “Jesus wept,” proves the doctrine that Jesus had both tear ducts and feelings quite convincingly. Or am I guilty of using “private judgment” here and do I need an “infallible” declaration of the Roman Magisterium to be sure? (And then who interprets the infallible interpreter?)

Not everything in Scripture is considered doctrine. Your concept of Faith alone is a man-made doctrine. Your feeble rebuttal is sad.
Miguel Sastre:

But how would you begin to establish your authority principle without resorting to private, infallible interpretation?

The sad thing about those who adhere to the doctrine of private judgment, is their denial of almost anything that relates to authority in the Bible. You try to say that Church doctrine, which has its roots in the teachings of the Apostles is nothing more than private judgment. This is bigotry. It is a matter of historical record that the Church has always taught publicly the true doctrine of the Apostles, always till now.

If I were a thoughtful Christian, I would see the contradictory mess everyone has made of the Bible using private judgment, and recognize that this hardly looks like Divine guidance. What looks like Divine guidance is a Church instituted by Jesus Christ to preserve and protect His original doctrines as he passed them on to the Apostles personally, and they passed on to their successors with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and His own continued Kingship. There’s nothing private about the Church. It has always been public, including her publishing of the Gospels and letters of the Apostles and St. Paul.

Private individuals however, exercising their misguided private judgment against the authority of the Church is how false doctrines have ever come into the world.

 

[paul_c]

What about the principle, abusus no tollit usum? (The abuse of scripture doesn’t negate the use of scripture.) Surely the fact that people, councils, and even popes have misused (even abused) scripture, doesn’t mean we can’t come to a plausible interpretation, right?

Without the authorititive explanation of how to understand scripture from the Church, you can come to a plausible interpretation, but that wouldn’t make it the true interpretation.

But how would you begin to establish your authority principle without resorting to private, infallible interpretation? If I were to ask you how you know Rome is infallible, you’d likely cite texts such as “he who hears you hears me,” or “the Spirit will lead you to all truth,” etc. But if I were to further ask how do you know your interpretation of those texts is correct, well, you certainly couldn’t argue “Because Rome is infallible.” For that would in deed beg the biggest of all questions. In fact, since those are among the classic texts for infallibility, we could well ask IF those texts can bear the weight Rome’s apologists place upon them. In fact, not only are we not required to read such texts that way, we’re scarcely justified in doing so. For there is no evidence that Jesus has precisely and only the Roman Magisterium in mind when he made such promises.

You are starting from a false premise. The authority of the church is note derived from scripture. The Church predates scripture and it was the authority of the church that defined the current bible as scripture. The question then goes back to the credibility of the Catholic Church. To define that requires more than scripture. You need to understand the entire history of doctrine through the ECFs. And I would maintain that any evangelical church has no claim of credibility in comparison with the Catholic Church. How would you even start to demonstrate that your faith is credible? Would you turn to scripture? If so, wouldn’t you need to recognize that it was put together by the authority of the Catholic Church and wouldn’t that defeat your arugment about relative crediblity

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Then you are playing directly into Satan’s hands. His is a very clever lie - making you beleive that you don’t have to do anything because you trust in Jesus, even when Jesus told you directly that more was required.

Not a lie, but the gospel truth. And when you call what the Holy Spirit has inspired a “lie,” you’re in some dangerous theological waters. Be that at as it may, Paul, I think you’re a bit too hasty in your assumption that trusting Jesus is a simple, non repeatable, one-time act. The verbs are in the present tense and therefore believing in Jesus is on-going, life-long and implies not only belief “that” Jesus is Lord but also belief “in” him as Lord, which therefore necessitates the obedience of faith. Anything less would not be faith at all. But don’t read this as “faith + something else.” For by doing this you actually pile on requirements that aren’t in fact scriptural. We were just discussing Acts 15. I’ll ask you the same question you asked me. Did you read it? If so, then surely you read these words from Peter: “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (Acts 15:10-11). If you add to the gospel of grace, then you have a “different gospel” than the one the apostle preached. That’s what you end up with Paul when you add ethical requirements, sacraments, religious observance of any kind. No one can keep the law, “neither we nor our ancestors.”

Another clever lie from Satan. When Jesus gives you a list of requirements, call it legalism and then you don’t have to follow what he says.

Paul, you’re making several basic errors in your interpretation here.

1. You’re assuming that Jesus is teaching that the keeping of the ten commandments is a condition for salvation. But Jesus nowhere says that.
2. You’re assuming that what Jesus says to the rich/young ruler is applicable in the New Covenant when that had not yet been established. Jesus also tells people to offer what Moses prescribed and show themselves to the Jewish priests as a testimony to them—but not even Rome believes that we’re to do that today.
3. You’re not reading biblically; rather you’re subordinating Paul to Matthew thereby creating a canon within the canon. In point of fact, if you struggle a bit and do your exegetical homework, you’ll find that there is no conflict between Paul and Matthew on the point of keeping the commandments. While they sometimes seem to be in contradiction (e.g., Matthew’s “not one iota of the law will pass away” versus Paul’s “the law is abolished”), a careful reading of both yields the conclusion that there is no final conflict between the two. Most scholars, Catholic and Protestant, agree on this point. Matthew insists that the ethical demands of the ten commandments are constitutive of Christian faith. Paul agrees with this when he calls the law “good” and “holy.” Paul says he would not have known “thou shalt not covet” apart from what is revealed in scripture. But he also knows that the commandment, finding an opportunity in the flesh, produces in him all kinds of covetousness (see Romans 7:11). Matthew, for his part, is a firm believer in the grace of God and nowhere teaches that salvation is earned or maintained by doing good works, but rather from start to finish it is God’s work who bestows upon the New Israel, all His covenant promises (see the Beatitudes). Paul, for his part, insists on radical obedience to Christ, including the ethical demands represented by the law. But these should not be read as requirements for salvation.
4. You cannot possibly explain the thief on the cross. Jesus did not require this man to keep the commandments as a condition for salvation. He was surely guilty of “thou shalt not steal.” He could not say, “all these I have kept from my youth.” And yet Jesus promises him paradise solely on the basis of his contrition, which implies the presence of saving faith.
5. You cannot reconcile your view with the official position of your church which in deed does hold out the possibility for salvation for those who, “through no fault of their own,” have never heard the gospel. While scripture clearly denies that there is anyone who “seeks” God and that the very heavens declare God’s glory and his ethical requirements, Rome nevertheless makes it possible for even the sincere Buddhist to go to heaven, despite the fact that they did not comply with Jesus’ “list of requirements” (your words).

In fact there are no laws. Laws are antiquated. Do what you feel is right - trust in God to save you. Can’t you see the trap Satan is laying out for you?

That’s not my view. That’s just your caricature. Check yourself to make sure you’re not in the very trap you think has been laid for me.

continued…

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Continued from previous post…

No. The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is required. Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood are still baptism.

Required, but not absolutely required. As you go on to quote the catechism, those “who through no fault of their own” have not heard the gospel, and therefore have not accepted baptism (in the RC scheme of things), can still go to heaven. So, neither the good thief, nor the good Buddhist, nor the good (fill in the blank) has to be baptized in order to go to heaven. But if you’re going to read John 3:5 as a requirement for Baptism, then you need to at least acknowledge that it’s a normative requirement and not an absolute one. There are just too many exceptions to the rule, in Catholic thinking, for your statement to carry any meaning. “It’s required, except for those who desired it, but didn’t get to the water on time, martyrs, the thief on the cross, anonymous Christians, good Buddhists, ethical atheists and anyone else who, “through no fault of their own,” was not able to believe in Jesus.

You are mislead. this is what the Catechism has to say on the matter:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

This is nothing more than salvation by grace-inspired works for those who haven’t heard of the gospel, but who nevertheless are trying to find salvation. But this completely contradicts scripture which not only makes faith in Christ absolute, but which also tells us in no uncertain terms that unregenerate humanity, by nature, do not seek God and in fact are moving headlong away from him. Like I said, the people described in CCC 847 don’t need to be baptized or observe Jesus’ “list of requirements” (your terms) to be saved. You’re quote proves my point, Paul.

Miguel, just because your personal interpretation is different, doesnt’ change the truth of Jesus’ statement in John 6: 54:
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

But what does Jesus mean by “eats flesh” and “drinks blood?” You assume this is a direct reference to the Eucharist because you think Tradition, rather than exegesis, settles the matter. If so, then what about all those people in CCC 847 who never made their first communion? What about the thief on the cross? He didn’t have the Eucharist, did he? And why not give communion to infants? Augustine did, and the Eastern Orthodox do. And in case someone is in danger of death, why only conditionally baptize them? Why not also give them communion, “just in case?” And how many times do you have to commune in order to meet this requirement, Paul? Is one time enough? Or is Jesus talking about an ongoing practice (as the present tense verbs suggest)? I think Jesus is making eating his flesh/drinking his blood parallel to believing in him, as we find in other parts of John 6. Therefore, it is ongoing belief in him that leads to eternal life. This saves us from having to count discrete acts of faith (of which going to communion may be just one example); rather we can simply say, as Jesus does, that abiding and believing in him is what leads to eternal life. But now unpack what that means. What does it mean to believe in him and abide in him? It means nothing less than a complete surrender of one’s life to him. It costs us everything to do that—not just a one-time feel-good moment per your caricature of Christianity.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Miguel Sastre:

It means nothing less than a complete surrender of one’s life to him.

Except Obedience to His Church of course. You are quite comfortable being obedient to your own interpretation of what you think you see in Scripture, but that’s it. Very convenient, and very comfortable.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The Catholic Church teaches that you are saved by grace through faith. But then you must do the good works that you are called to do, to enter heaven.

Where, in the documentation (official church sources) does it say, “but then you must do good works” or even words to that effect?

The law absolutely does not cause sinfullness. This is another lie of SATAN.

Not a lie Paul, but Scripture. Sin finds an opportunity in the law to produce all kinds of sinfulness. That’s not Satan—that’s the Holy Spirit. You really need to stop confusing the two. (See Romans 7:8-13).

How do you reconcile your interpretation with these words from Our Lord himself from Matthew 19:16-19: Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

I think the answer is to read the passage very carefully, in both its immediate and canonical context. Notice closely that the passage does not say: “Salvation is attained by commandment keeping.” There’s no hint here that Jesus is stating a general rule; rather he is addressing a specific question, one that was popular in his day. The question is, “what good deed must I do?” as if there were a single, decisive deed that could earn salvation. By responding, “keep the commandments, “ Jesus is saying that it doesn’t come down to one deed, but rather a life that is characterized by faithfulness to the covenant. In this case, we have a child of the Old Covenant receiving a response consistent with the terms of that covenant.

But then Jesus also adds, “sell all your possessions.” Would you have us believe, Paul, that only if we sell all of our possessions that we can be saved? But both keeping commandments and selling possessions are part of Jesus’ answer. Why, then, do you focus on one but not the other?

Jesus also says, “Come follow me.” In other words, it seems to that this, finally, is the answer to the question. Jesus is pushing this particular Rich Young Man to reflect deeply on what he is attached to, break radically with that, and then become his disciple.

Accept what Jesus teaches…Cease putting your faulty intepretations of Paul over the very clear teachings of Jesus.

Why do I suspect that what you’re really saying is, “Ignore Paul, if he seems to conflict with Jesus?”

Here’s the truth: The sacraments are physical signs of our covenant with God. If you choose not to follow them, you do so at your own peril

Fine, Paul. I can buy that as a provisional definition of the sacraments. What I can’t buy, however, is that these are what save us. That theory has done nothing but produce untold millions of baptized, communicated and confirmed unbelievers in both your church and in Protestantism.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
Then you are playing directly into Satan’s hands. His is a very clever lie - making you beleive that you don’t have to do anything because you trust in Jesus, even when Jesus told you directly that more was required.

The so called Gospel of Grace that you espouse must ignore most of the actual gospel to be true. There is far more than just faith required. As Paul says in 1Corinthians 13: 2, " if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. . As for Acts 15: The argument was about circumcision:
4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them.
5 But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”
6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

Peter clearly taught that you will be judged based on your work, not your faith:
see 1Peter 1:
14 Like obedient children, do not act in compliance with the desires of your former ignorance
15 but, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct,
16 for it is written, “Be holy because I (am) holy.”
17 Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning,
18 realizing that you were ransomed from your futile conduct, handed on by your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold
19 but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb.

When you use the Catholic church’s intepretation of the bible, you can not go wrong. The theological risk is all on you, who interpret the bible without authority or knowledge.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by Miguel Sastre

Quote:
Another clever lie from Satan. When Jesus gives you a list of requirements, call it legalism and then you don’t have to follow what he says.

Paul, you’re making several basic errors in your interpretation here.

1. You’re assuming that Jesus is teaching that the keeping of the ten commandments is a condition for salvation. But Jesus nowhere says that.

What are you talking about? The person asked Jesus very directly what it took to gain eternal life and Jesus answered" follow the commandments." It can’t be any more direct than that. Again, from Matthew 19 so you can scrutinize it:
16 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”
17 He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19 honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"

Originally Posted by Miguel Sastre

1. You’re assuming that what Jesus says to the rich/young ruler is applicable in the New Covenant when that had not yet been established. Jesus also tells people to offer what Moses prescribed and show themselves to the Jewish priests as a testimony to them—but not even Rome believes that we’re to do that today.

So your argument is that this was included in all three synoptic gospels but that it is no longer relevant? Please explain why they would include this in the new testament if that was the case. This is an exceedingly weak argument that would fool virtually no one.

Originally Posted by Miguel Sastre

1. You’re not reading biblically; rather you’re subordinating Paul to Matthew thereby creating a canon within the canon. In point of fact, if you struggle a bit and do your exegetical homework, you’ll find that there is no conflict between Paul and Matthew on the point of keeping the commandments. While they sometimes seem to be in contradiction (e.g., Matthew’s “not one iota of the law will pass away” versus Paul’s “the law is abolished”), a careful reading of both yields the conclusion that there is no final conflict between the two. Most scholars, Catholic and Protestant, agree on this point. Matthew insists that the ethical demands of the ten commandments are constitutive of Christian faith. Paul agrees with this when he calls the law “good” and “holy.” Paul says he would not have known “thou shalt not covet” apart from what is revealed in scripture. But he also knows that the commandment, finding an opportunity in the flesh, produces in him all kinds of covetousness (see Romans 7:11). Matthew, for his part, is a firm believer in the grace of God and nowhere teaches that salvation is earned or maintained by doing good works, but rather from start to finish it is God’s work who bestows upon the New Israel, all His covenant promises (see the Beatitudes). Paul, for his part, insists on radical obedience to Christ, including the ethical demands represented by the law. But these should not be read as requirements for salvation.

I am not subordinating Paul to Matthew. All scripture is true. I’m showing you that they harmonize in a way that you simply can not explain with your erroneous theology. Matthew and Paul both recognize that you must do the will of God to gain entrance to heaven. Neither preaches the Gospel of Faith alone. You will see both teach about the importance of faith. But both say that Love is more important. Have you reach 1corinthians 13?

Originally Posted by Miguel Sastre
4. You cannot possibly explain the thief on the cross. Jesus did not require this man to keep the commandments as a condition for salvation. He was surely guilty of “thou shalt not steal.” He could not say, “all these I have kept from my youth.” And yet Jesus promises him paradise solely on the basis of his contrition, which implies the presence of saving faith.

Of course we can explain the thief on the cross - by the way, did you know his name is St. Dismas? Here’s what Luke says about the incident in chapter 23:
39 Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.”
40 The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation?
41 And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
43 He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
So Dismas did exactly what the Church says he should do: he defends Jesus, he takes ownership for his sins and he asks Jesus to take him into his Kingdom. This is called the baptism of desire: he wanted to enter the church but was physically unable to be baptized. This was at the last moments of his life, so he dies in the state of grace and enters heaven, just as the Catholic Church teaches. He did all the works he could by defending Jesus. Nothing more was requried and nothing else could have been done by St. Dismas.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by Miguel Sastre

1. You cannot reconcile your view with the official position of your church which in deed does hold out the possibility for salvation for those who, “through no fault of their own,” have never heard the gospel. While scripture clearly denies that there is anyone who “seeks” God and that the very heavens declare God’s glory and his ethical requirements, Rome nevertheless makes it possible for even the sincere Buddhist to go to heaven, despite the fact that they did not comply with Jesus’ “list of requirements” (your words).

You know Miguel. I even included the applicable paragraph from the Catechism and still you misunderstand what it says and yet your arrogantly lecture me on what the Catholic Church teaches . Here it is again:

Quote:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

.

Those that are saved who are not members of the Catholic Church must
a) be invincibly ignorant of the Church and what it teaches
b) but still do the will of God by following their consciences.

You see, its not Faith alone. Faith plays no role in this situation since these people never heard of Christ. What saves them is doing the will of God. St. Paul calls this the natural law in Romans 2 - God lets everyone know his requirements through conscience. you merely need to cooperate with those graces he gives you

Originally Posted by Miguel Sastre

quote:
In fact there are no laws. Laws are antiquated. Do what you feel is right - trust in God to save you. Can’t you see the trap Satan is laying out for you?

That’s not my view. That’s just your caricature. Check yourself to make sure you’re not in the very trap you think has been laid

Perhaps it is a characture, but itsn’t that what you are saying - that the laws don’t apply to you because you have been saved?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
No. The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is required. Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood are still baptism.

I guess I’m missing your point. The way the Catholic church describes these situations is that if the person HAD know about the church, they would have asked to be baptized. They will not be penalized for situations beyond their control. However, if you had the chance to be baptized and you simply decided that you didn’t want it, then this situation does not apply to you.

Quote:
You are mislead. this is what the Catechism has to say on the matter:

it most certainly does not contradict scripture. It merely contradicts your interpretation of scripture, which has no credibility. By the way, how do you feel about the morally upright, loving person that never encountered Christ? Should they be condemned?

Quote:
Miguel, just because your personal interpretation is different, doesnt’ change the truth of Jesus’ statement in John 6: 54
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day:

You REALLY need to start trying to understand what you are rebelling against. Its foolish to Protest something that you don’t understand. Here’s the basic teaching of the Eucharist. Jesus is present in the bread and wine that has been consecrated by a priest. When we eat his body and drink his blood, he becomes part of us in a real, physical way. This provides grace in a way that you can’t imagine - helping us to become holy as he is holy and making it easier to follow his will.

By the way, I appreciate that you feel like you have completely surrendered to Jesus, but is it really true. You aren’t willing, for instance to submit to his Church, instead choosing your own means of surrendering. Is that really full surrender? I submit that it is fact, doing so on YOUR terms, which is not full surrender…

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
The Catholic Church teaches that you are saved by grace through faith. But then you must do the good works that you are called to do, to enter heaven.

From the Catechism:
II. TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD

678 Following in the steps of the prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus announced the judgment of the Last Day in his preaching. Then will the conduct of each one and the secrets of hearts be brought to light. Then will the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of God’s grace as nothing be condemned. Our attitude to our neighbor will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love. On the Last Day Jesus will say: “Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”

679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He “acquired” this right by his cross. The Father has given “all judgment to the Son”. Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.

Quote:
The law absolutely does not cause sinfullness. This is another lie of SATAN.

The law might make you aware of your sin, but it does not coerce you to sin.

Quote:
How do you reconcile your interpretation with these words from Our Lord himself from Matthew 19:16-19: Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

The moral codes written by the finger of God are eternal truths. They certainly didn’t become obsolete at Calvary…

But then Jesus also adds, “sell all your possessions.” Would you have us believe, Paul, that only if we sell all of our possessions that we can be saved? But both keeping commandments and selling possessions are part of Jesus’ answer. Why, then, do you focus on one but not the other?

I don’t but recall what he says to the rich man:
20 The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Notice, he now is addressing what it takes to be perfect, not just entering heaven.

Jesus also says, “Come follow me.” In other words, it seems to that this, finally, is the answer to the question. Jesus is pushing this particular Rich Young Man to reflect deeply on what he is attached to, break radically with that, and then become his disciple.

yes, he says follow me. That required more than just faith, it requires radical action.

Quote:
Accept what Jesus teaches…Cease putting your faulty intepretations of Paul over the very clear teachings of Jesus.

if Paul seems to conflict with Jesus that your interpretation is faulty. That’s the point. all scripture harmonizes. And don’t you find it curious that when you do find a conflict, you choose Paul over Jesus.

Quote:
Here’s the truth: The sacraments are physical signs of our covenant with God. If you choose not to follow them, you do so at your own peril

Being saved and going to heaven are two different things. Baptism saves. but then you must follow Jesus and do his will to go to heaven. You are right, there are many people that have been saved that will never get to heaven because they don’t lead the life of a true Christian. And that is particularly true of the “Faith alone crowd” , who think that nothing more is required.

---

 

[fhansen]

Quoting Lutheran confessions:
We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by wilful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein.

This brings up a sort of interesting and subtle distinction. In Catholic teaching faith can remain after serious sin, because faith is considered to be simply knowledge of God and other supernatural truths (which is why even demons can possess it) while the same sin is said to destroy *love *in mans heart which is why the Holy Ghost/grace are excluded by such sin.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Miguel Sastre:

Fine, Paul. I can buy that as a provisional definition of the sacraments. What I can’t buy, however, is that these are what save us. That theory has done nothing but produce untold millions of baptized, communicated and confirmed unbelievers in both your church and in Protestantism.

By that reasoning, you may also dismiss Faith from being the source of salvation. Untold millions of Catholics and Protestants have lost their faith.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

By that reasoning, you may also dismiss Faith from being the source of salvation. Untold millions of Catholics and Protestants have lost their faith.

Or never had it to begin with…