Honest Protestant seeking answers on Sola Fide (Galatians)

[steve_b]

Yet again I see that you didn’t understand my original question. If circumcision is the means by which one entered into the Old Covenant,

why does Paul quote Habakkuk 2:4, against the concept of justification through circumcision in Galatians 3?

In other words: Why does Paul argue from the Old Testament, that the Law was not the means by which we are justified?

It’s not the means but a sign

since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. [Rm 3:20]

rec:

Some would say that Paul is saying that Jesus + Obedience to the Law = salvation…

However, that is exactly what the Judaizers believed, and thus Paul must be arguing AGAINST that concept,

which is what Catholics coincidentally hold to.

WHERE???

please show your source. Give specific quotes properly referenced.

I’ll make your search easy. Here is the search engine for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is what the Catholic Church teaches worldwide.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Search under:

• faith or
• justification, or
• salvation, or
• obedience, or
• circumcision. or
• works, or
• good works or
• whatever term you want to search on.

I only ask that you do your homework before you accuse.

rec:

P.S.: In order to understand what Paul meant, you don’t run to James. James had his own context,

Are you saying James conflicts with Paul? Does Paul teach a different gospel than James?

Bottomline, nowhere in scripture is “faith alone” used, accept in James 2:24. Paul NEVER uses faith alone, NOR does he teach a faith that is alone. And that is James point.

• Jesus never taught faith alone
• Peter never taught faith alone. In fact

Peter taught (emphasis mine)

[2 Pet 1:]

5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8Forif you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
**10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if** you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

to make one’s calling and election sure, look at all the qualifications one must do eagerly.

 

[edif_alos]

Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 287
Religion: Faithful to the Chair of St. Peter

All apologies to Erikd, for using his quoted Religion in the post above.

This thread is very good, but I do need to understand some things about Peter and the Catholic Church. To any New Testament student or Christian trained with Scripture Alone as the lone source in matters of faith - I would like to have some references that would help understand his status. I have the greatest respect for St. Peter and his work for Christ.

In this thread there is some *back handed * compliments to Paul, and even some references to ‘Paul worship’ by Protestants. It almost seems that Catholics may even have a light hostility for Paul’s Epistles. Paul’s status, in the New Testament, is beyond clear.

To a simple student, it also seems like maybe Paul was the first Apostle to lead the Church in Rome. The New Testament seems to tell a different story than the Catholic Christians profess. Peter may have worked as an Apostle in Rome, although there is no record of that for biblical students.

***‘Faithful to the Chair of St. Peter’ ***is an odd statement by a Christian. Faithful to Jesus Christ is the only possible statement of the Living Faith we profess as a single Christian family. Peter was nothing short of amazing in his work for Christ - he just didn’t die for our sins.

From a biblical student’s point of view, the entire Body of Christ seems quite divided by simple human tradition:
1Corinthians 12-17
12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[a]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

I would like to think both Peter and Paul would not be proud of how the Christian Church has been divided by this silly stuff. Pride and position seem more important than Christ. Being ‘right’ in human terms outweighs the true mission of the Church, which can only be evangelism of all mankind. Both the great Apostles, Peter and Paul, would simply be amazed to how it all turned out. The Peter I learned to love never intended to become godly in the eyes of Christians.

In closing, I wonder what Christians of my denomination, chiefly Protestant, could give up to the Catholic Church - to unite us. 2000 years after Christ died, 500 years since the Reformation – seems long enough to be separated in matters of faith. That is my prayer tonight.**

 

[steve_b]

This thread is very good, but I do need to understand some things about Peter and the Catholic Church. To any New Testament student orChristian trained with ScriptureAlone as the lone source in matters of faith - I would like to have some references that would help understand his status. I have the greatest respect for St. Peter and his work for Christ.

What specifically is your question?
edif:

In this thread there is some *back handed *compliments to Paul, and even some references to ‘Paul worship’ by Protestants. It almost seems that Catholics may even have a light hostility for Paul’s Epistles. Paul’s status, in the New Testament, is beyond clear.

On the contrary Catholics have great affection for Paul as we have for all the apostles.
edif:

To a simple student, it also seems like maybe Paul was the first Apostle to lead the Church in Rome.

Paul built up the Church of Rome, but by his own words he wasn’t the first apostle when he wrote to the Church of Rome, ~57 a.d. The Church of Rome was already there.

Rm 1:

8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. 9God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you 10in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.
11I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. 13I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.
edif:

The New Testament seems to tell a different story than the Catholic Christians profess. Peter may have worked as an Apostle in Rome, although there is no record of that for biblical students.

Peter

• wrote 1st Peter in Rome.
• was martyred in Rome and is buried under the altar at St Peter’s.

Your bio says you are in Rome. Have you been to St Peter’s?
edif:

***‘Faithful to the Chair of St. Peter’ ***is an odd statement by a Christian.

On the contrary, If one doesn’t acknowledge this, can they suspect they are Christian?

As an aside, Lookup Moses seat in the OT. Can you find it? Yet Jesus said Moses had a seat that the scribes and Pharasees sat on in His day [Mt 23:2]. And Jesus said do whatever they tell you because they sit on Moses seat. Is THAT odd?
edif:

Faithful to Jesus Christ is the only possible statement of the Living Faith we profess as a single Christian family. Peter was nothing short of amazing in his work for Christ - he just didn’t die for our sins.

If one is faithful to Jesus they are ALSO faithful to what Jesus commanded.

Jesus

• builds His Church on Peter.
• gave Peter the keys to His kingdom, a kingdom that not even the gates of hell will prevail against. And will last forever. Which means Peter will have successors
• told Peter personally, whatever you (singular) bind and whatever you (singular) loose on earth will be done in heaven.
• said those who receive you receive me and the one who sent me.
• said Peter was the one to confirm the apostles i.e. the Church
• said to Peter alone, feed and rule MY sheep i.e. my Church

If one is faithful to Jesus they will NOT go against what Jesus established.
edif:

From a biblical student’s point of view, the entire *Body of Christ *seems quite divided by simple human tradition:
1Corinthians

[snip for space]

As he told the Church of Rome

Rm 16:
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
edif:

I would like to think both Peter and Paul would not be proud of how the Christian Church has been divided by this silly stuff. Pride and position seem more important than Christ. Being ‘right’ in human terms outweighs the true mission of the Church, which can only be evangelism of all mankind. Both the great Apostles, Peter and Paul, would simply be amazed to how it all turned out. The Peter I learned to love never intended to become godly in the eyes of Christians.

Paul warned the Galatians multiple times

Gal 5:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Bottomline, the Catholic Church is the Church from the beginning. And scripture says those who divide from her are in serious trouble.
edif:

In closing, I wonder what Christians of my denomination, chiefly Protestant, could give up to the Catholic Church - to unite us. 2000 years after Christ died, 500 years since the Reformation – seems long enough to be separated in matters of faith. That is my prayer tonight.

What is keeping YOU from returning to the Catholic Church

 

[PJM]

I was asked eariler to provide evidence of the CC doctrine on salvation. here it is.

The Defined Doctrine of the RCC on Salvation

---

"The basic Catholic teaching is that there is no salvation outside the Church. The Church here being the one that Christ Himself founded and which over the centuries has come to be identified as the “Catholic” Church.

What is contingent for salvation then is initiation into the Catholic Church. This is properly done through the sacrament of baptism. Baptism places a permanent character on the soul, forever identifying it as Christian. Baptism also effaces the mark of Original Sin on the soul and all actual sins the person many have committed as well as all the temporal punishment due for them. If a person would die after being baptized, they would go straight to heaven.

Once baptized a person must continue to grow and deepen their Faith in order to arrive at death in a good disposition. Christ, therefore, gave His Church other sacraments, teachings and powers in order that its members could be strengthened in the Christian life and live lives pleasing to God. At death, a soul must be in the state of grace, that is, have no major unconfessed sin upon the soul and thus be in peace and union with God. To be sure to die in such a good way, daily perseverance in Christian virtue and living is deemed necessary. This is the function of the Church in the life of a Catholic, for It provides the means and encouragement by which to correctly stay the course." ****

Catholic Catechism CCC: 169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation.” Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith

CCC 780 The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men.

CCC 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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.

Perhaps this becomes more understandable in the light and wisdom of Matthew 7: 13 "Enter by the narrow gate; ***See Eph. 4: 4-8 One Church, One Faith and Mt. 16:15-19] ***for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. [Now IN EXCESS of 30,000 Protestant secs, each with separate beliefs and practices] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.[clearly the road to hell is paved with good intentions] You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit ***the CC has been serving Christ for 2,000 consecutive years, and its still ONE CHURC!], ***nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.Thus you will know them by their fruits.”

The bottom line is not what what chooses to accept as truth, but what is the TRUTH?

The bible supports in many places the institutation of Only One Church, which today we know as Catholic. Because Christ only founded one Church, is it not logical that Salvation would be through Her? Gid gave us intellegence to use it.

Love and prayers,

 

[edif_alos]

What specifically is your question?

On the contrary Catholics have great affection for Paul as we have for all the apostles.

Paul built up the Church of Rome, but by his own words he wasn’t the first apostle when he wrote to the Church of Rome, ~57 a.d. The Church of Rome was already there.

Rm 1:

8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. 9God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you 10in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.
11I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. 13I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

Peter

• wrote 1st Peter in Rome.
• was martyred in Rome and is buried under the altar at St Peter’s.

Your bio says you are in Rome. Have you been to St Peter’s?

On the contrary, If one doesn’t acknowledge this, can they suspect they are Christian?

As an aside, Lookup Moses seat in the OT. Can you find it? Yet Jesus said Moses had a seat that the scribes and Pharasees sat on in His day [Mt 23:2]. And Jesus said do whatever they tell you because they sit on Moses seat. Is THAT odd?

If one is faithful to Jesus they are ALSO faithful to what Jesus commanded.

Jesus

• builds His Church on Peter.
• gave Peter the keys to His kingdom, a kingdom that not even the gates of hell will prevail against. And will last forever. Which means Peter will have successors
• told Peter personally, whatever you (singular) bind and whatever you (singular) loose on earth will be done in heaven.
• said those who receive you receive me and the one who sent me.
• said Peter was the one to confirm the apostles i.e. the Church
• said to Peter alone, feed and rule MY sheep i.e. my Church

If one is faithful to Jesus they will NOT go against what Jesus established.

What is keeping YOU from returning to the Catholic Church

The arrogance of your answers is disappointing. I’ll share you with the same disrespect and see how far we get. My belief is pure ecumenism among believers in Jesus Christ. I also hope to see this happen within my lifetime. Your answers give me less hope with you only. Polemic dogma can only assist the dark spirits at work everywhere.

Here is the polemic dogma I hear from my friends. My friends say the Catholic Church is solely human tradition, money, & power over illiterate societies (a requirement) – and their question is simple. What biblical reason do Roman Catholics state their glorious existence inside the gates of the Vatican? (wasn’t St. Peters built with money raised by the sale of indulgences?) Especially their pretension to dole out grace like they somehow direct God’s forgiveness. My friends also say the Catholic Church is an untruthful and dubious beast, whose main assertion of owning and selling Jesus Christ. The Catholics claim that all good Christian Churches outside their church are outside of salvation. Is this true? Do the Catholics claim this? Did the Catholic Church sell indulgences under the order of the Pope? If so, where is this money now? (obviously in St. Peters) You asked if I had been to St. Peters - well I have. Hard to believe a poor carpenter’s son led to that structure. Wouldn’t that money be better spent on missionary work through the interior of Africa?

My feelings are different. Polemic dogma destroys the invisible Church of Christ. I believe that good Christians are everywhere - although that quality is invisible within all earthy Christian churches. Christ lives everywhere - even if some believe differently.

Paul didn’t start the church in Rome, but was the first and possibly the only Apostle that worked there. Most biblical evidence points to Priscilla and Aquila’s group starting the church in Rome. Once again, Christian workers (Priscilla and Aquila) associated with Paul, not Peter.
Peter simply disappears halfway through Acts. We simply don’t have a record of his work past this point. I can only assume he continued his work with the Jewish Christian church, with the guidance of James the Just. He may have made it Rome. There just isn’t any biblical reference to his later work.

BTW, Peter wrote 1Peter from Babylon. Paul was in Rome. Peter was in Babylon. That is what the bible states. What are to believe in this regard - the biblical record or the words of individuals editing history 300 years later?

1 Peter 5:12 Through Silvanus, our faithful brother, as I consider him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand. 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you; and so does Mark, my son. 5:14 Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Jesus built his church on forgiveness (not Peter) and a life with the Holy Spirit. The only kingdom is Heaven. There is nothing between God and his children on earth. This is truly the good news of Jesus Christ.
You asked ”What is keeping YOU from returning to the Catholic Church.” My answer is the Biblical record. In return, I would also ask you to consider becoming a Christian, who just happens to belong the Roman Catholic Church.

And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:

 

[revert_jen]

Here is the polemic dogma I hear from my friends… (rather caustic anti-Catholic sentiments deleted)

My feelings are different. Polemic dogma destroys the invisible Church of Christ. I believe that good Christians are everywhere - although that quality is invisible within all earthy Christian churches. Christ lives everywhere - even if some believe differently.

It you don’t believe in the “polemic dogma” then why would you repeat it? Can you possibly think any of us haven’t heard it all before?

“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they may also be in us, so the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (Jn. 17:20-21)

How is an invisible church showing the world that God the Father sent Jesus into the world?

As the explosion in the number of Protestant denominations shows, the only way to have visible unity (which is what Jesus prayed for) is to have authority. That means dogma.

Anyway, what is dogma? It is information about God. How can one love God and not want to know more about Him? I can certainly see how one could disagree with a particular dogma, but disagreeing with dogma as a concept doesn’t make sense to me.

Maybe you’ve never had this problem, but I freely admit that I have had it at times: Rather than remembering that God made man in His image, in my head, unconsciously, I try to make God in man’s image. It can affect how I understand the Scriptures, how I feel about moral issues, and certainly about how I judge my own actions. This isn’t a rational disagreement with my former thoughts, it’s just a feeling. The Church and her dogmas help me to keep focused on God (who is Truth), who is real and exists whether I believe it or not, instead of getting caught up in my feelings about God, which are solely inside my head.

BTW, Peter wrote 1Peter from Babylon. Paul was in Rome. Peter was in Babylon. That is what the bible states. What are to believe in this regard - the biblical record or the words of individuals editing history 300 years later?

As I understand it, Rome was frequently referred to as Babylon. There wouldn’t be any confusion, as the original Babylon (city-state) fell and started becoming a forgotten city, with its building materials taken away for construction elsewhere, over three hundred years before 1 Peter was written. It is theoretically possible that Peter was in the region that was referred to as Babylon, which unlike the city still existed, but I don’t think there is any evidence for it.

In fact, you know, I think John mentions Babylon in Revelations somewhere–and anti-Catholics are quick to take that reference to Babylon as referring to Rome. (In fact, Catholics also take that as referring to Rome, meaning the Roman Empire.)

–Jen (realizing only too late just how off-topic this is for this thread)

 

[steve_b]

My friends say the Catholic Church is solely human tradition,

Ever ask them for proof? That’s usually the way it works.

Protestantism by definition is purely human tradition. We know who every group is started by.
edif:

money, & power over illiterate societies (a requirement) –

The Catholic Church Always has worked to reduce or eliminate iliteracy,.from the 1st century.
edif:

The Catholics claim that all good Christian Churches outside their church are outside of salvation. Is this true?

here is the Catechism definitions
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

**“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
edif:

Do the Catholics claim this? Did the Catholic Church sell indulgences under the order of the Pope?

catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp
edif:

You asked if I had been to St. Peters - well I have. Hard to believe a poor carpenter’s son led to that structure.

Wouldn’t that money be better spent on missionary work through the interior of Africa?

I’ve heard this charge before only a different context* Jn 12:3-6.*

Regarding Charity, There isn’t a more generous organization in the world than the Catholic Church.
edif:

Paul didn’t start the church in Rome, but was the first and possibly the only Apostle that worked there. Most biblical evidence points to Priscilla and Aquila’s group starting the church in Rome. Once again, Christian workers (Priscilla and Aquila) associated with Paul, not Peter.

In general, Paul worked with Gentiles (brought into the Church by Peter) while Peter worked with Jews brought into the Church. This was not a hard and fast agreement between them. Both were in Rome establishing and building up the Church
edif:

BTW, Peter wrote 1Peter from Babylon. Paul was in Rome. Peter was in Babylon. That is what the bible states.

Babylon is in Iraq. There is ZERO evidence Peter ever went to Iraq. Besides in the 1st century the Babylon in Iraq was destroyed and in ruins 100’s of years before Peter was even born… No One lived there. Look it up yourself. Scripture even tells you. Jeremiah 51:37, Babylon will be a heap of ruins, …a place where no one lives. It’s still that way today.

Babylon was a code name for Rome.

.

 

[PJM]

=edif alos-Paul was simply saying that true faith - clearly seen by our lord only - is what is required by us, his children.

Then perhaps you can explain these? Both authored by Paul.

Eph. 2: 8-10 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Phil. 2:12 “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

We can’t fool our lord by religious ceremony of any kind. True faith in our hearts turns us fully toward God. In this regard, true faith is the only requirement for the grace of Jesus Christ.

Friend you simply lack biblical understanding. Might I suggest that you open your Bible to the Old Testament and READ Exo. Ch. 5, Lev. Ch. 7, Psalm 54, Tobit Ch. 1, Num. Ch. 15, Mt. 26:28, Mk. 14: 22-24, Lk. 22: 19-21, 1 Cor. 11 all. God and the Bible don’t agree with you friend.

True faith in God results in his Holy Spirit in us, using his special gifts, doing his work on Earth. We can’t take credit in the work of the Holy Spirit through us. Our work, together with the Holy Spirit, does not earn us credit with God on justification.

---

We agree that while God finds WORKS necessary, one cannot “buy there way into heaven.” But failing to do WORKS can earn one hell. ***

By our faith, our Lord only sees Jesus when judging us as meriting eternal life

Again your lack of proper Biblical teaching, using the ENTIRE Bible is evident. Please look up for example: Jn. 3:5, 36 ; Mt. 19:16, Mt. 16:19, 1 Jn. 1:8-10, 1 Jn. 5: 16-17, and Jn.20: 21-23.

Paul and James are not in disharmony to the hearts of Christians. Though these beautiful scriptures our lord teaches us everything. Through Paul our Lord teaches us the miracle of forgiveness and the power of Christ in our lives. James helps us look deeper in our faith and find our purpose in life. Together they agree and we see Christ clearly.

Does this imply that you have read James Ch. TWO?

Catholics and Protestants both need Christ equally. We are together in his death and are united in his resurrection as souls that will spend eternity with our Lord.

*****Thank you for your charity! *But there are profound Theological and Philosophical differences in what we teach, practice and believe, in accord to the Mandates of Christ using the entire Bible, as 2 Tim.3:16 instructs all to do. The Seven Sacraments all instituted by Jesus and supported by the Bible are hugely significant. “2nd. Cor. 9: 13 “Under the test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ,” “Romans 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.” “I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; 1 Tim. 6; 14” “41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." “2 Peter 2” 4 “For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell * and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” This verse is stating that God demands we follow His Commandments, the Beatitudes, do works of charity, are Baptized and Confess our sins.

{QUOTE]The separation, between Catholics and Protestants, in only temporal and will come to an end. Spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ is our true work - and is the common ground that should unite us.

The evidence does not support this claim. After 2,000 consecutive unbroken years there remains only ONE Catholic Church [founded by Jesus Mt. 16:15-19] while Protestants have over 30,000 separate sects, each with their own rules, understanding and teachings. There simply cannot be more than ONE single truth on any single issue.

So in the end, Faith and Works are both gifts of God. We don’t need and we shouldn’t strive to merit extra credit with God. God’s grace is sufficient – and is all we need.

---

Of course we should. That is precisely why Jesus instituted the Seven Sacraments, and tells us to “work out our Salvation” Which means its NOT a done deal. ***

By Christ death we are Redeemed, that part is assured. However Redemption only means that heaven has again become a possibility. That is precisely why God Created us with a mind, intellect and freewill, so that we might freely choose to cooperate with His plan and conditions for our salvation. Amen!

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[edif_alos]

**Ephesians 2:8-9 **
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Thanks to all that have posted wonderful answers to my questions concerning the Roman Catholic Church. Although none of my associates are Catholic, I have learned much from both the content of your responses and the spirit of your loyalty. I also understand why 500 years have passed without the Christian family being together fully.

Even though we both feel correct on Christian doctrine, we can also hope for the next generation of Christians to find the common ground on service to Christ’s mission – and find a way back together. Both of our churches are led by sinners needing forgiveness. Both of our churches fall short of perfection. We have so much common ground.

In my dreams, I would have imagined John Paul II and Martin Luther together working out these problems. In my mind, they were both spiritual giants that seemed to want better for the Church of Christ. Someday two new leaders may emerge to finally reconnect all the like-minded souls serving our lord.

In closing I would like to say that this experience has been good. I wish for you strong faith, a committed life working for Christ, and an open heart seeking to understand all of God’s saints. You will always be in my prayers.

Matthew 5:43-46
***“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? ***

 

[erikd]

In closing I would like to say that this experience has been good. I wish for you strong faith, a committed life working for Christ, and an open heart seeking to understand all of God’s saints. You will always be in my prayers.

Edif Alos:

May God bless you in your journey as you search the Word of God for truth and edification.

 

[rmcbride77]

Yet again I see that you didn’t understand my original question. If circumcision is the means by which one entered into the Old Covenant, why does Paul quote Habakkuk 2:4, against the concept of justification through circumcision in Galatians 3?

In other words: Why does Paul argue from the Old Testament, that the Law was not the means by which we are justified?

Some would say that Paul is saying that Jesus + Obedience to the Law = salvation…

However, that is exactly what the Judaizers believed, and thus Paul must be arguing AGAINST that concept, which is what Catholics coincidentally hold to.

P.S.: In order to understand what Paul meant, you don’t run to James. James had his own context, but first we should understand what Paul is teaching…that is how one does exegesis.

You must simply read Romans 2 to see that Paul and James do not contradict and that they both have the same context.

Romans 2

5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done."

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

The Jews and the Law

17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”**
25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.**

 

[reccanboy]

Habakkuk 2:4 is a prophecy which St. Paul quotes throughout his writings (Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38). All of St. Paul’s writings make comparisons between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Galatians is no different. St. Paul was not arguing that the Law of Circumcision was not the way the Israelites were justified. St. Paul was quoting from a prophecy where the Prophet Habakkuk, received a revelation from God of something that was to take place in the future:

snip

Thanks for the response, since you’re the only person in this thread who actually addressed the text I quoted.

However, I disagree with you, as Galatians 3:10 says: "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

Leviticus 27 isn’t merely a prophecy for the future, but something that was true for the Jews before Christ. How does one reconcile this to Catholic soteriology?

 

[erikd]

Thanks for the response, since you’re the only person in this thread who actually addressed the text I quoted.

However, I disagree with you, as Galatians 3:10 says: "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

Leviticus 27 isn’t merely a prophecy for the future, but something that was true for the Jews before Christ. How does one reconcile this to Catholic soteriology?

Reccanboy:

I’ll be happy to clear things up but first I have to understand the question. First, how does Leviticus 27 come into play? This talks of tithes and vows which is something we haven’t discussed yet. I’m not sure how it corresponds to this discussion. Second, what exactly do you disagree with as far as Galatians 3:10 and the Catholic Church? Look forward to your reply.

 

[reccanboy]

Reccanboy:

I’ll be happy to clear things up but first I have to understand the question. First, how does Leviticus 27 come into play? This talks of tithes and vows which is something we haven’t discussed yet. I’m not sure how it corresponds to this discussion. Second, what exactly do you disagree with as far as Galatians 3:10 and the Catholic Church? Look forward to your reply.

Oops! I meant DEUTERONOMY 27:26. That’s where Paul quotes from. Also, as a side note, this chapter in Deuteronomy also refers to the “words of this Law” as including moral commandments (e.g. “Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person.”).

Sorry for the confusion.

Paul said that those who followed the Law under the Old Covenant were not justified on the basis of faith + works, but faith alone.

Paul also defines the “Law” as also including the moral commandments:

“Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God…” -Romans 3:19

Paul said that the entire World was under the Law, even Gentiles. So this must include the moral commandments, not simply the ceremonial ones.

 

[erikd]

Oops! I meant DEUTERONOMY 27:26. That’s where Paul quotes from. Also, as a side note, this chapter in Deuteronomy also refers to the “words of this Law” as including moral commandments (e.g. “Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person.”).

Sorry for the confusion.

Paul said that those who followed the Law under the Old Covenant were not justified on the basis of faith + works, but faith alone.

Paul also defines the “Law” as also including the moral commandments:

“Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God…” -Romans 3:19

Paul said that the entire World was under the Law, even Gentiles. So this must include the moral commandments, not simply the ceremonial ones.

No problem. Now, let me take a crack at it. This may take a few back and forth posts so let’s see where we go from here. Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia citing the Council of Trent. This is considered official Church teaching. Let me hear your comments on this and we’ll progress afterwards:

*The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).

It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner’s heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man’s free will.

Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God’s justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ’s sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins.*

newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm

Is there anything here that is contrary to the verses you sent earlier?

 

[reccanboy]

No problem. Now, let me take a crack at it. This may take a few back and forth posts so let’s see where we go from here. Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia citing the Council of Trent. This is considered official Church teaching. Let me hear your comments on this and we’ll progress afterwards:

*The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).

It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner’s heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man’s free will.*

Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God’s justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ’s sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins.

newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm

Is there anything here that is contrary to the verses you sent earlier?

Nothing in that passage is contrary to the passages I have cited, no.

However, I am concerned with why Paul, quoting Deuteronomy 27, puts the Judaizers under a curse, even though the OT saints were justified because they observed the Mosaic command of circumcision…?

 

[wmscott]

I am hoping for a Catholic response which can offer an exegesis of the epistle to the Galatians ch. 5:2-4, which I find to support justification by faith alone.

The Galatians being addressed in this letter are said to accept the atonement of Christ, and thus they believe in grace.

Now, I repeat yet again, the audience of Paul’s epistle were part of the Church community, and thus recognized the necessity of the atonement of Christ, but they didn’t recognize the sufficiency of the atonement for justification, which is why they wanted to be circumcised. Thus one cannot say that Paul was arguing against individuals who believed that one is justified solely upon the basis of the Law, apart from grace.

Galatians 5:2-4 “Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

I am crystal clear on the fact that Paul recognizes the “works of the law” as being the ceremonial elements of the Law, so I don’t expect posts correcting me on this matter.

This is the heart of the issue:

Paul said that: “it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for The righteous shall live by faith.” (Gal. 3:11)

Paul quotes from the book of Habakkuk, which is from the Old Testament. This means that even in the OT, you were not justified by the law of circumcision, even in light of the coming sacrifice of the messiah.

If any Catholic can help me understand a better interpretation of Galatians, then I would greatly appreciate it.

Taken from the Haydock’s Catholic bible Commentary

Ver. 10-14. Are under a curse…cursed is every man, &c. The sense of these is to be found in Deuteronomy xxvii. 26. in the Septuagint. Some expound them thus: curses are pronounced against every one who keeps not all the precepts of the law, but there is not any one; i.e. scarce any one, who keepeth them all; therefore all under the law are under some curse. But as it cannot be said that no one kept all the precepts, especially the moral precepts of the law, mentioned in that place of Deuteronomy; (for Zacharias and Elizabeth were both just in the sight of God, Luke i., and doubtless many others lived so as not to incur those curses, but were just and were saved, though not by virtue of the works of the law only, nor without faith in God, and in their Redeemer, who was to come) therefore others understand that all such persons fall under these curses, who think to comply with all these precepts by their own strength, or who confide in the works of the law only, without faith in Christ, the Messias, and without which they cannot be saved. This agrees with what follows, that the just man liveth by faith. (Habacuc ii. 4.) See Romans i. 17. — Now the law is not of faith, i.e. the works done merely in compliance with the law, are not works of faith that can save a man: but he that doth those things of the law, shall live in them; i.e. says St. Jerome, shall have a long temporal life promised in the law; or, as others say, shall have life everlasting, if they are done with faith. — Christ hath redeemed us from these curses; but to do this, hath made himself a curse for our sake, by taking upon himself the similitude of a sinner, and by dying upon the cross, as if he had been guilty of the greatest sins, having only charged himself with our sins, inasmuch as it is written: (Deuteronomy xxi. 23.) cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree; which is to be understood, in case he deserve it for his own sins. — That the blessing of Abraham (or promised to Abraham) might be fulfilled; i.e. Christ redeemed us, that these blessings might be fulfilled on all nations, and that all might receive the promise of the Spirit, or the promised spirit of grace believing in Christ, who is now come. (Witham)

I hope this helps.

 

[steve_b]

I am concerned with why Paul, quoting Deuteronomy 27, puts the Judaizers under a curse, even though the OT saints were justified because they observed the Mosaic command of circumcision…?

• Circumcision got you into the covenant. Circumcision didn’t justify. Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. [Rm 2:25]
• However if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, [Rm 4:14] So what value is the law and why was it given? where there is no law there is no transgression.[Rm 4:15] before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. [Rm 5:13] Therefore, The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, [Rm 5:20]
• Judaizers knew the law down to the letter, but didn’t DO what the law required, so they fell under the curses of the law…

 

[erikd]

Nothing in that passage is contrary to the passages I have cited, no.

However, I am concerned with why Paul, quoting Deuteronomy 27, puts the Judaizers under a curse, even though the OT saints were justified because they observed the Mosaic command of circumcision…?

I perceive that your ultimate question may be regarding Church teaching and therefore I will use Catholic study guides to answer the questions you posed. I can give you my personal opinions but they will not vary from what I will quote you. The St. Paul verse you quoted is this:

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”
Galatians 3:10

St. Paul, of course, was referring to this:

26 ‘Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Deuteronomy 27:26

Commentary from the Catholic NAB Study edition regarding Galatians 3:10-14:

“Those who depend not on promise and faith but on works of the law are under a curse because they do not preserve in doing all the things written in the book of the law in order to gain life (Gal. 3:12, Lv. 18:5, Rom. 10:5). But Scripture teaches that no one is justified before God by the law (Gal. 3:11, Hb. 2:4, Rom. 1:17, Heb. 10:38). Salvation then depends on faith in Christ who died on the cross (Gal. 3:13), taking upon Himself a curse found in Dt. 21:23 (about executed criminals hanged in public view), to free us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). That the Gentile Galatians have received the promised Spirit (Gal. 3:14) by faith and in no other way returns the arguments to the experience cited in verses 1-5.”

Let me know if I’m on the right track to answer the question or if I’m straying off course.

 

[reccanboy]

I perceive that your ultimate question may be regarding Church teaching and therefore I will use Catholic study guides to answer the questions you posed. I can give you my personal opinions but they will not vary from what I will quote you. The St. Paul verse you quoted is this:

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”
Galatians 3:10

St. Paul, of course, was referring to this:

26 ‘Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Deuteronomy 27:26

Commentary from the Catholic NAB Study edition regarding Galatians 3:10-14:

“Those who depend not on promise and faith but on works of the law are under a curse because they do not preserve in doing all the things written in the book of the law in order to gain life (Gal. 3:12, Lv. 18:5, Rom. 10:5). But Scripture teaches that no one is justified before God by the law (Gal. 3:11, Hb. 2:4, Rom. 1:17, Heb. 10:38). Salvation then depends on faith in Christ who died on the cross (Gal. 3:13), taking upon Himself a curse found in Dt. 21:23 (about executed criminals hanged in public view), to free us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). That the Gentile Galatians have received the promised Spirit (Gal. 3:14) by faith and in no other way returns the arguments to the experience cited in verses 1-5.”

Let me know if I’m on the right track to answer the question or if I’m straying off course.

I don’t agree with the commentary because the Judaizers relied upon faith AND the works of the Law, not simply the works of the Law alone, just like Catholic soteriology would have us believe about the Jews living under the Old Covenant.