Help for a friend

[millersatthefar]

Dear Friends:

I have a friend who has left the Church and I am not well versed enough to counter his objections. Please help. I have pasted his letter below.

I agree with what you’re saying that it is not each person’s prerogative to interpret scripture however they please, with complete freedom. However, the Holy Spirit can and does lead each believer in their discernment (Romans 14). Yes, the Church teaches and disciples. However, it is not the prerogative of the Church to add to the scripture. Any teaching which does not come from the scripture is man-made. If you can’t point to a verse to back up a doctrine or teaching, then it is not scripturally sound to teach it. Interpreting scripture is very different from adding to it. Perhaps we can agree on that much. If we can’t, then the discussion will come to a very abrupt end, for that is the fundamental crux of my concern. Everything beyond that is details.

The perpetual virginity of Mary. To the contrary, Matthew 1:25 tells us "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son"

The co-redeemer. “It was on Calvary that Mary’s suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view, but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world.” -Salvifici Doloris. Compare this to Colossians 1:13-14 “For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” and 1Peter:18-19 “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” Can we find a verse of scripture which attributes our redemption to anyone other than Jesus?

Purgatory. “Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise, the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.” -Second Vatican Council. Compare this to Hebrews 7:23-25 “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.” Can we find a verse of scripture that teaches the existence of purgatory? I’m not talking about a philosophical justification of why it ought to be necessary. Do we see it in scripture?

The nature of works (since you mentioned Martin Luther’s solo fide). “We can actually merit heaven as our reward… Heaven must be fought for; we have to earn heaven” - Dogmatic Theology for the Laity. Compare to Ephesians 2:8-9 “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.” Even a fully contextual reading of James shows us that works are the indication of true, living faith, not a means by which we earn heaven.

Solo scriptura. “The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): ‘I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.’ This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text… According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed.” -The Catholic Encyclopedia. Here we have a clear recognition that the text used is not what it originally said.

Worship of the saints. I know that Catholics reject the term “worship” and opt instead to call it “veneration”, but when you pray to someone and offer sacrifices to someone, seeking miracles, that’s worship.

It is simply not within the Church’s mandate to change or add to scripture. This fundamentally is what my decision came down to. If, as Romans 14 says, someone is led to interpret something from scripture as having a particular meaning for their life, they may be guided by the Spirit to do so. However, once someone, even the Church, begins to teach something which is not found in scripture, they are elevating their own philosophy to be on parity with the Word of God. This applies just as much to denominations that teach that gambling or drinking alcohol is a sin. My response to them is the same: show me a verse that says that.

I find no comfort in the contention that the Roman church is the original and unchanged institution inherited from the apostles. The established church in Jesus’ time was inherited from Aaron, but yet it had seen many prophets come to correct its errors. I also would dispute the underlying contention that the Roman church is unchanged in its teachings. Just one example:

“In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people…New dangers came in during the Middle Ages…To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary)

"Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14: ‘We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue’ " - Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

First of all, you must disabuse yourself of the notion that overcoming his objections is the key to his salvation. Salvation is God’s work. A greater understanding of the faith he left (and clearly never understood) certainly may pave the way back home, and you may be able to help with that, but only the Holy Spirit can change his heart.

Here are a few quick points to his objections (I don’t have the time or knowledge to hit them all comprehensively):

“…until she brought forth a son.” The text from which this comes is not a graceful translation into the English “until”. As I understand it, the text only seeks to make clear that Mary was “unknown” by anyone prior to the birth of Jesus. English translation notwithstanding, there is nothing in the text that confirms or denies any subsequent union between the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph. The fact that the Church started with people who knew Jesus personally and has carried the tradition that she remained a virgin should carry a great deal of weight here.

The co-redemptrix thing is largely misunderstood. It only refers to Mary’s unique human role in Christ’s redemption. Her unquestioning consent to the will of God and her immaculate conception (which, itself, was simply one more miraculous work of God) means that her relationship to Jesus and the effects of his redemptive work are you unique to her. It does not mean that Mary is divine or has any independent power to save. Mary is one of God’s finest creations, but she is just a creation.

I’m not sure I’ve ever found a clear and obvious scriptural foundation for the whole doctrine of purgatory (though there are passages that may tilt that way). I would, however, point out that scripture descends from the Church, not the other way around. Remember that there was no New Testament until the end of the 4th century. Jesus gave us a Church, not a book. He gave the Church the discernment (through the Holy Spirit) and the authority to establish a biblical canon.

Seems I’ve blundered into refuting sola scriptura a little early. While I’m here, I’ll point out that the bible itself doesn’t call itself the sole rule of faith. The idea that the Bible contains all truth except for the part about it containing all truth is…problematic.

As for works, the Church teaches that we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. The quote your friend wrote down is completely outside of any context, so it’s hard to comment about it. It might be an echo of St. Paul’s “fighting the good fight–running the race.” I suspect that whoever wrote the quote knows that our acts can avail us of Christ’s grace without themselves being a source of it.

On worship of the saints: the saints are part of our church community. We don’t write our brothers and sisters off when they die. We may admire them as examples of devotion to God, and we may ask them to pray to God on our behalf, but we don’t confuse them with God. We only hold them up as examples of what God can do with those who allow him to work.

…and then he’s back to sola scriptura.

Sounds like his two big problems are: 1. He really doesn’t know what the Church teaches and is misinterpreting what he sees people doing in the Church, and 2. He is deifying scripture. He seems to share the common misconception that the bible just fell out of the sky one day, and anything not explicit in the bible is of the Evil One or something.

He also doesn’t seem to see the distinction between disciplinary decisions and doctrine.

I don’t know what’s going on with your friend. Catechesis in the West has been criminally weak for a long time; perhaps he is a victim of this. Perhaps is ox is being gored by moral teachings and he would rather interpret scripture in his favor than face the unmoving moral authority of the Church.

In any case, don’t believe for a moment that you can bring him back. You can correct errors about Church teaching (while remaining patient and charitable–I’m terrible at that part), possibly heading off some rationalizations, but it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to establish the hold on his heart. Frankly, prayers for him will probably prove much more valuable than solid theology. Go with both, just to make sure.

 

[FightingFat]

Any teaching which does not come from the scripture is man-made. If you can’t point to a verse to back up a doctrine or teaching, then it is not scripturally sound to teach it.

This is patently nonsense. What did Christians use before the KJV? Most people couldn’t read before the invention of the printing press, they relied on the Magisterium of the Church. Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us…” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

 

[FightingFat]

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

 

[FightingFat]

The perpetual virginity of Mary. To the contrary, Matthew 1:25 tells us “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son”

Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0907btb.asp

See also:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208fea.asp

and-

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

and-

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9201drag.asp

 

[FightingFat]

The co-redeemer. “It was on Calvary that Mary’s suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view, but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world.” -Salvifici Doloris. Compare this to Colossians 1:13-14 “For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” and 1Peter:18-19 “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” Can we find a verse of scripture which attributes our redemption to anyone other than Jesus?

Big issue. The first and fundamental consideration is that there is only one true mediator between God and Man, and that is Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, Vatican II teaches:

The unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise among creatures to a manifold co-operation which is but a sharing in this unique source (L.G. 62).

We all mediate when we pray. Mary must be the most powerful of intercessors.

Another point is that the title “Co-Redemptric” doesn’t, in its original Latin sense, imply the idea of equal partnership in redemption which its use in English context might suggest to the unwary or uninstructed. The prefix “co” here implies subordination rather than equality. Because this is not widely understood, even as Marian a pope as Pius XII avoided using the term.

This is a useful article on how to approach the subject: -

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0712fea1.asp

 

[FightingFat]

Purgatory. Can we find a verse of scripture that teaches the existence of purgatory? I’m not talking about a philosophical justification of why it ought to be necessary. Do we see it in scripture?

A State After Death of Suffering and Forgiveness

Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, “be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.

Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin.

Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and “under the earth” which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.

Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.

Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are “made” perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory.

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the “prison.” These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.

Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory.

Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word “unclean” comes from the Greek word “koinon” which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed.

Luke 23:43 – many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol,” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus’ statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life – perhaps by a bloody and repentant death – could be ready for admission in to heaven).

Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 - here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purification, and expedited their journey to God.

scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

 

[FightingFat]

Is Purgatory Found in the Bible?

 

[FightingFat]

The nature of works (since you mentioned Martin Luther’s solo fide). “We can actually merit heaven as our reward… Heaven must be fought for; we have to earn heaven” - Dogmatic Theology for the Laity. Compare to Ephesians 2:8-9 “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.” Even a fully contextual reading of James shows us that works are the indication of true, living faith, not a means by which we earn heaven.

Why is it always either, or with Protestants? Why do they feel the need to strip the faith down?

Faith Justifies Initially, but Works Perfect and Complete Justification

James 2:24 - the phrase “faith alone” (the Greek “pisteos monon”) only occurs once in the Bible. “Man is justified by works and NOT faith alone.” Unlike what many Protestant churches teach, no where in Scripture does it say that man is justified or saved by “faith alone.” To the contrary, man is not justified by faith alone. In Catholic theology, a person is justified by faith and works acting together, which comes solely from God’s divine grace. Faith alone never obtains the grace of justification (Council of Trent, chapter 8, canon 9). Also, the word “justified” (dikaiow) is the same word Paul uses for justification in Rom. 4:3 in regard to Abraham (so Protestants cannot argue James is not referring to “justification” in James 2:24 unless they argue Paul wasn’t in Rom. 4:3 either).

Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 17:30 - the faith we have must be a repentant faith, not just an intellectual faith that believes in God. Repentance is not just a thought process (faith), but an act (work) by which we ask God for His mercy and forgiveness.

John 3:36; Rom. 1:5, 6:17; 15:18; 16:26; 2 Cor. 9:13; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:11; 1 Peter 2:7-8; Heb. 5:9; cf. Rev. 3:10; Ex. 19:5 – this faith must also be an “obedient faith” and a “work of faith.” Obedience means persevering in good works to the end.

2 Cor. 10:15 – this faith must also increase as a result of our obedience, as Paul hopes for in this verse. Obedience is achieved not by faith alone, but by doing good works.

2 Cor. 13:5 – Paul also admonishes us to examine ourselves, to see whether we are holding to our faith. This examination of conscience is a pious Catholic practice. Our faith, which is a gift from God, must be nurtured. Faith is not a one-time event that God bestows upon us.

Gal. 5:6 – thus, the faith that justifies us is “faith working through love,” not faith alone. This is one of the best summaries of Catholic teaching. Faith and love (manifested by works) are always connected. Faith (a process of thought) and love (an action) are never separated in the Scriptures. Cf. Eph. 3:17; 1 Thess. 3:6,12-13; 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 John 3:23; Rev. 2:4-5,19. Further, all faith (initial and perfected) are gratuitous gifts from God, and not earned or merited by any human action. God effects everything, both the willing and the achievement. But God also requires human action, which is necessary to perfect our faith.

James 1:22-25 - it’s the “doers” who are justified, not the hearers. Justification is based on what we do, which means “works.” Notice that there is nothing about “false faith.” The hearers may have faith, but they need to accompany their faith by works, or they will not be justified. See also Rom. 2:13.

James 2:18 - to avoid the truth of the Catholic position that we are justified by both faith and works, Protestants argue the justification that James is referring to in James 2 is “before men” and not “before God.” Scripture disproves their claim.

James 2:14 - James asks, “Can faith save him?” Salvation comes from God. This proves the justification James is referring to is before God, not men.

James 2:19 - also, James reminds us that even the demons believe and tremble. This refers to our relationship with God, not with men. Thus, our justification that requires works and not faith alone relates to our status before God, not men.

James 2:21 - James also appeals to the example of Abraham. Abraham’s justification refers to his position before God, not men. This proves justification is before God, not men.

Acts. 10:35 – Peter teaches that anyone who fears the Lord and does what is right is acceptable to Him. It is both fear and works, not fear alone.

Rom. 2:7,10 - to those who by patience and good works will be granted glory and honor and peace from the Lord.

Rom. 2:13 – for it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Paul is referring to the “law of Christ” in Gal.6:2, not “works of the law” in Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2,5,10; and Eph. 2:8-9. The “law of Christ” is faith in Christ and works based on grace (God owes us nothing) and “works of the law” mean no faith in Christ, and legal works based on debt (God owes us something).

Rom. 4:5-6 – to him who does not work but believes, his faith is accounted to him as righteousness, like David, who was righteous apart from works. Here, Paul is emphasizing that works must be done in faith, not outside of faith. If they are done outside of faith, we are in a system of debt (God owes us). If they are done in faith (as James requires), we are in a system of grace (God rewards us). Hence, Paul accepts the works performed under God’s forbearance (grace) in Rom. 2:7,10,13 (see also Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:12-17; and 2 Corinthians 5:10) which lead to justification and eternal life. These verses have nothing to do with “faith alone.” Paul uses the word “alone” three times in Rom. 4:12,16,23, but never uses it with “faith.” Certainly, if he wanted to teach “faith alone,” he would have done so.

scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

 

[Church_Militant]

Dear Friends:

I have a friend who has left the Church and I am not well versed enough to counter his objections. Please help. I have pasted his letter below.

I agree with what you’re saying that it is not each person’s prerogative to interpret scripture however they please, with complete freedom. However, the Holy Spirit can and does lead each believer in their discernment (Romans 14). Yes, the Church teaches and disciples. However, it is not the prerogative of the Church to add to the scripture.

Sacred Tradition

Any teaching which does not come from the scripture is man-made. If you can’t point to a verse to back up a doctrine or teaching, then it is not scripturally sound to teach it.

His Sola Scriptura statement is itself unscriptural as is the errant reformed doctrine itself. Sola Scriptura & The Bible Alone

Interpreting scripture is very different from adding to it. Perhaps we can agree on that much. If we can’t, then the discussion will come to a very abrupt end, for that is the fundamental crux of my concern. Everything beyond that is details.

Then you might not hear from him again. In which case, oh well… I had a similar experience with a long time friend who insisted on sending mne anti-Catholic emails. told him not to send me that stuff and haven’t heard from him again.

The perpetual virginity of Mary. To the contrary, Matthew 1:25 tells us “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son”

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The co-redeemer. “It was on Calvary that Mary’s suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view, but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world.” -Salvifici Doloris. Compare this to Colossians 1:13-14 “For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” and 1Peter:18-19 “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” Can we find a verse of scripture which attributes our redemption to anyone other than Jesus?

Typical misinterpretation. He will ignore Simeon’s prophecy to the Blessed Virgin in Luke 2:35.
Mary, Mother of Salvation: How to Talk to an Evangelical about …

Purgatory. “Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise, the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.” -Second Vatican Council. Compare this to Hebrews 7:23-25 “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.” Can we find a verse of scripture that teaches the existence of purgatory? I’m not talking about a philosophical justification of why it ought to be necessary. Do we see it in scripture?

Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory and Purgatory and The Roots of Purgatory (Fathers *)

The nature of works (since you mentioned Martin Luther’s solo fide). “We can actually merit heaven as our reward… Heaven must be fought for; we have to earn heaven” - Dogmatic Theology for the Laity. Compare to Ephesians 2:8-9 “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.” Even a fully contextual reading of James shows us that works are the indication of true, living faith, not a means by which we earn heaven.

Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Solo scriptura. “The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): ‘I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.’ This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text… According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed.” -The Catholic Encyclopedia. Here we have a clear recognition that the text used is not what it originally said.

Already refuted above.

Worship of the saints. I know that Catholics reject the term “worship” and opt instead to call it “veneration”, but when you pray to someone and offer sacrifices to someone, seeking miracles, that’s worship.

He’s nuts…

• The Intercession of the Saints (Fathers*)
• Praying to the Saints
• Saint Worship?
• Do Catholics Worship Statues?
• Relicshttp://blackieschurchmilitant-apocalypsis.blogspot.com/2007/08/intercession-communion-of-saints.html
• The Intercession & Communion of Saints

I find no comfort in the contention that the Roman church is the original and unchanged institution inherited from the apostles. The established church in Jesus’ time was inherited from Aaron, but yet it had seen many prophets come to correct its errors. I also would dispute the underlying contention that the Roman church is unchanged in its teachings. Just one example:

What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?

“In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people…New dangers came in during the Middle Ages…To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary)

Hogwash… how widespread was literacy? His history is messed up.

Moreover, the reason for the actions in question were because heretics had produced translations with gross errors in their notes.[Where we got the bible (Where we got the bible)

 

[TimothyH]

It’s really difficult to refute a whole manifesto against Catholicism by someone who isn’t going to be convinced. I appreciate the fact that the original poster want’s help but the real solution to the problem is for millersatthefar to spend some quality time with the Bible in the company of some Scott Hahn books and maybe a copy of Catholicism vs Fundamentalism by Karl Keating.

I mean no disrespect to the original poster but you gotta know your faith to be able to defend it. We can trade bible verses back and forth with a guy like your Protestant friend all day long but at the end of the day it’s really about learning about God for his sake. Defending the faith is really secondary.

Having said that, I’ll take on Purgatory and sling a few verses myself. My entire series on the Biblical basis for Catholc belief in Purgatory can be read HERE. The downloadable version is HERE.

Purgatory. “Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise, the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.” -Second Vatican Council. Compare this to Hebrews 7:23-25 “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.”

Jesus is able to save completely. No Catholic denies that. It’s a straw man argument.

Can we find a verse of scripture that teaches the existence of purgatory? I’m not talking about a philosophical justification of why it ought to be necessary. Do we see it in scripture?Yup. Clearly.

*And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31)*Exactly consistent with the quote from Vatican II cited by the Protestant.

*If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)*Where does one go to be saved as through fire but still suffer loss? You don’t suffer loss in Heaven. You don’t get saved in Hell. Only in Purgatory can you suffer loss but still be saved. This passage makes no sense in a Heaven and Hell only theology.

*No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect. (Hebrews 12:22-23)*How can the spirits of the just be made perfect? If someone dies justified, why did they need to be made perfect? Because Revelation 21:27 says that nothing unclean will enter Heaven.

-Tim-

 

[Kivech]

Ok, this coming from someone who is not good at quoting scripture at all, so be patient with me.

What I read from what he is writing is that he is finding that the church as an institute is using the Bible in an unjust way, and on top of it ‘invents’ itself rules to which in the whole Bible no confirmation is made at all. Worse, at times it says the contrary.

Forget about the quotings for a moment. That will just have you engage into a pointless discussion about who is right and who is wrong. That chased him away in the first place, so I would definitely not go for that approach.

Start with keeping in mind that this is your friend for whom you care a lot. Dare I say that you love him as your friend? Then part from there.

He feels betrayed by the very institute that he trusted for a long time, and feels hurt as a result. I cannot blame him, because he makes very valid points. I could write a book on those msyelf.

However, one needs to keep in mind that we are living in an imperfect world. The very definition of this world is imperfection (yes I know, but leave the Bible out for a moment, otherwise we won’t get anywhere).
The very definition of God is perfection. His Love then, must be perfect, otherwise God would be imperfect. That means that His Love for all is perfect as well. Again, if not, He would not be perfect. Perfect Love must be Patient, Unlimited, Never ending, etc. Perfect after all does not lack anything and can only be complete and abundant.

Now, humans however, they at times seem to be the opposite of this. Unfortunately, the church is run by humans. No matter how they define things in statutes and such, as far as I can tell even the pope himself is human, and definately not where Christ was. He’d be raising the dead, walking on water, curing the sick, every day all day long. Since he doesn’t, I take it he’s not there yet (wherever that may be).

So even in the Vatican we are dealing with humans, with conflicting interests, politics, greed, power hunger, etc. just like in all other parts of the world. Therefore it is to be expected that those things that your friend objects to are going to be present. Such is the reality of this world and life in it, and also of the church.

Keeping these things in mind, one has to wonder what to do with this knowledge. Do I judge or do I forgive? Christ forgave even those that crucified Him when they were in the act of doing so. So I recon that His teaching in this regard is cristal clear: forgive.

It is impossible to find the perfection of God in this world through judgement. The only way to find it is through forgiveness. This would be a perfect lesson of forgiveness for your friend.

I myself have many objections to how the Vatican operates, how the Bible is explained at times or how people interpret. But I still feel pretty good in the catholic church, because it seems to fit me best of what I have nearby. I might not agree with a lot of things, but I forgive them for being the way man is and enjoy the gathering of people in the search of God still very much. If nothing else it helps me to express my feelings for Christ and God and my brothers. Without it I would feel quite lost actually, so I wouldn’t want to eliminate that from my life, despite my critical look on things.

See if he would be open to this. Don’t try to convince him with quotes and such, because he is right in his way, and he knows it. So that approach will definitely not work.
What counts is what Christ teaches, and not the imperfections of man. Christ teaches to forgive those for whatever you feel they are holding against you and love them like God does; fully, unconditionally, completely and perfectly. Then suddenly things are really seen in a different light.

Leave his own choice up to him though. If he really doesn’t want to return to the church, let him do so. He does not need the building or the priest to find Christ. That is just one of the ways we have available to us in this world. It just might be that a different way fits him better. Which does not make him ‘lost’ necessarily, but should be respected.

Good luck to you and your friend. Just be patient with him most of all. Sounds like he’s going through a bit of a rough time.