How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[mikeledes]

I understand. Let me see if I can put it down more directly. It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that after baptism, if a man commits a mortal sin, that he would lose his salvation. After baptism, anyone who committed a mortal sin and did not do penance would not regain salvation and would not be forgiven by God. (edited due to lack of space)

There are so many erroneous assumptions about Catholic soteriology in your post that I don’t know if I have the time to address them all today. First of all, if you believe that God’s bestowal of grace (specifically the grace of justification) through a sacrament is a work and thus making that which is received something earned and not a gift, then Scripture teaches “works salvation” and that a gift of God is “earned.”

Acts 2:38

**38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. **

Acts 22:16

**16’Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’ **

If believing that we receive grace through the sacraments is works salvation, then the Bible teaches works salvation. And not only does the Bible teach this, but Christians unanimously taught this until John Calvin. Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration and in confession (to a minister) and absolution. So Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church also teaches works salvation. It’s ironic that a Protestant Reformer like Martin Luther actually taught “works salvation.” Also…

1 Timothy 4:14

**6For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. **

So despite the fact that God bestowed His gift to Timothy through the laying on of Paul’s hands, are you saying that this is not a gift because Timothy had to perform a “work” to receive it (i.e. subjecting himself to the laying on of hands)? Or do you believe that God cannot use means to bestow a gift? A sacremant, Pepcis, is not a work that earns the grace received and even Martin Luther himself would tell you that. It is not a material transaction in which one performs a work and then God pays you with grace. We do not receive grace because we’re baptised or have confessed. We receive grace through baptism and the sacrament of confession.

You yourself have recognized the necessity of repentance and confession (i.e. directly to God). I ask you this. Is not ‘confession’ a work? And does not the Bible condition forgiveness of sins and hence salvation on this work?

1 John 2:9

**9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. **

Moreover, does not the Bible say confess with your mouth (i.e. a work) and believe in your heart and you will be saved? Paul himself thus conditions salvation on faith and a “work” (i.e. confession).

Continued in next post…

 

[TheWhoFreak]

But that’s not really the same as we have been discussing. The Catholic Church tries to make a distinction between initial justification and a different justification that is ongoing - which is really a confusion between justification and sanctification.

Then you believe that Jesus lied when he said:

[SIGN]“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7)[/SIGN]

Here are people who actually PRODUCED fruit, and ended up with a dead faith. I would say, instead that they BEGAN with a dead faith, and it was such that Jesus could see through all of their good works and know them for who they truly were.

2 Peter 1:9 is simply a picture of another man with dead faith. One tries to produce good works to counterfeit his faith. The other doesn’t produce ANY works because there is no desire.

You can if you are like those who Jesus speaks of in Matthew 7. You have the guise of faith, and you can even have “good” works. Such people can (and often do) shipwreck their faith.

I often refer to these kind of Christians as “sunshine Christians.” That’s because when the sun is shining, and everything is copasetic, they will wear the garb of the Christian. But as soon as rain comes - as soon as troubles and persecutions begin, they will walk away from the faith.

Nobody begins with a dead faith. Tell me, have you ever seen someone accept Christ and then just brush it off? I haven’t. I think it is impossible to start with a dead faith. Even though someone’s faith may burn out quickly, they didn’t have a dead faith when they were “saved”. And to respond to the Scripture you pointed out. Those people who produced fruit were probably alive in their faith in the beginning, but then the works took over and they did all that stuff for self-edification, while presenting it under the guise of being for Jesus.

And I think that:
Sanctification=being made Holy
Justification=how we are made holy (we as Catholics believe we are saved by faith, but justified by our good works. look at Ephesians 2:10, it says we are made for good works. Look at James 2:14-26. How can works be insignificant in the light of that)?

 

[mikeledes]

Then you believe that Jesus lied when he said:

[SIGN]“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7)[/SIGN]

Here are people who actually PRODUCED fruit, and ended up with a dead faith. I would say, instead that they BEGAN with a dead faith, and it was such that Jesus could see through all of their good works and know them for who they truly were.

2 Peter 1:9 is simply a picture of another man with dead faith. One tries to produce good works to counterfeit his faith. The other doesn’t produce ANY works because there is no desire.

I’m sorry Pepcis. I don’t have a lot of time, so i’m just zeroing in on some of yoru arguments. First of all, I don’t believe that Jesus is lying because I don’t believe those He speaks about in that passage were genuinely converted. No one here denies that there are false professors masquerading as Christians. It is clear that they never received forgiveness of sins and hence never had faith. The case in 2 Peter 1:9 is different. You’re right. Context does help in determining the meaning of a word when a word has more than one meaning. But the meaning of words are established by an objective standard. You don’t suddenly create a new meaning for a word simply because it contradicts your interpretation of a passage. There is only one meaning for the word “forgotten” and I can’t believe that this is in dispute. You have given me an example of
the word forget being used in a dishonest way. You have not given me an example of forget being LEGTIMATELY and HONESTLY used in a sense other than failing to remember something you actually knew, had, or experienced. There is a big difference between a DISHONEST USE of a word and ANOTHER MEANING of the word.

Peter clearly says that the person had forgotten THAT HE WAS CLEANSED FROM HIS OLD SINS. In other words, HE FORGOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED TO HIM. Other words used for “old” in other translations are “past sins” or “former sins.” Pepcis, if a person had never been cleansed of his or her sins, how can they be “former”, “past”, or “old” if those sins still remain? And if those sins still remain, then he was ont - BY DEFINITION - cleaned from them.

I have to go. I’ll continue this tomorrow.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

Thank you for sharing your interpretation of that passage. Interestingly, on the interpretation of this passage and the understanding of the water as baptism, the Church fathers who were dispersed throughout all the world are in universal agreement that it is referring to baptism. Think about this for a minute. St. Paul travels around preaching the gospel to people all around the known world and with communication what it was the fact that the universal Church all understood this passage the same way in the east and in the west I would think has a lot more weight than those trying to interpret these passages 1500-2000 years later independent from the oral teachings of the apostles that were present in the early Church.

I confess I had never really studied what it was that “water” would mean, so your post provoked me to go back and take a much closer look. I found that I was wrong. “Water”, in this passage, is an ALLEGORICAL expression for the written word of God.

Also, just because those Bible scholars interpreted it that way 1500-2000 years ago, does not mean that they were correct.

The “baptism” by water is really a baptism by the Word. For example, in Ephesians 5, we see that Paul speaks of how Christ washes the Church by the Word of God, thereby presenting the Church spotless, so that He can present her holy and without blemish.

Notice elsewhere Paul shares how he was instrumental in leading others to salvation “through the Gospel” (I Corinthians 4:15). James tells us that “Of His own will begat He us with the Word of Truth.”
una fides:

Furthermore, when we compare the teaching with other Scripture it becomes clear that it is referring to water baptism:

1 Peter 3:20-21 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You’re reading things too literally again. Peter makes it crystal clear that we come into the kingdom of God by being washed by the Word: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God.”
una fides:

This passage is clearly speaking of water baptism. The context and meaning could not be clearer.

Actually, the context clearly shows that the KNOWLEDGE that Noah and his passengers gained from the experience baptized them. The Judgment of God is contained in His Word, and Noah experienced this Word “being of like form.” Which means that this is an allegory for us to interpret.

When Peter says “being of the like form [He] now saveth” us, it is clear that Noah’s LITERAL experience is now an allegorical expression for what we go through in receiving eternal life through the Word. Just as Noah received salvation by riding on the water, we too receive salvation by riding on the Word of God.
una fides:

And here is a verse I’m sure you’re quite familiar with:
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

You make this interpretation by ignoring clear Biblical declarations whereby we are told by Jesus that "You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you” (John 15:3)

The “washing of regeneration” is an ALLEGORICAL expression, which points us to how we come to faith: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” (Romans 10:17)

The key to understanding and interpreting “water” is recognizing that it was John who stated: “I indeed baptize with water, but there comes one who will baptize you with the Spirit.”

You are quick to interpret “baptism of the Spirit” ALLEGORICALLY as meaning “spiritual rebirth,” but when it comes to “baptism of water” you want to be LITERAL. It would appear that “baptism of water” refers back to John the Baptists “baptism of repentance.”

You cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven unless you first get baptized (repent of your sins), and then be born of the Spirit. The repentance of sins is more important than the physical act of water baptism, which is nothing more than an outward sign of an inward happening.

 

[una_fides]

Where else would one get their interpretation?
…
Yeah, that’s why there is disagreement between the various sects of Catholicism, right?

I find it interesting how you pick and choose which of my statements to respond to. Perhaps you could comment on where your Bible came from and the other points I raised, but then again, they are a little off topic, I’ll admit, but I would be interested in reading your response so I do invite you to send me a PM so we can discuss that further!

The many vastly different and contradictory interpretations of protestants cannot possibly be from the Holy Spirit. If they were, they would agree at least on the “fundamental” issues. But then again, there is no agreement as to what issues are and are not fundamental. I remember an old pastor of mine telling me that faith in a pre-tribulational rapture was one of the fundamentals of the faith that had to be believed by all Christians!

You have been asked to cite and list these “various sects of Catholicism” and you have not done so. There is only one Catholic faith. I am assuming your feeble attempt to divide up Catholicism into different groups is based on such unimportant criteria such as whether or not incense is used in the Mass or whether the priest faces ad orientem or towards the people. These are not parts of the Catholic faith and are customs that vary in different places. Those who reject the defined teachings of the Church incur automatic excommunication and are not part of the Church regardless if they otherwise profess to be. Only those who believe in the Church’s domgatic teachings are properly considered her members. We are permitted, however, to interpret various doctrines differently that have not been defined and can also make deductions from the defined dogmas. However, the dogmas themselves have to continue to be understood in the same sense as they always have been. We have the rules of interpretation, we have the saints, we have the Church fathers, we have 2000 years of unbroken line of succession to the apostles. There is unity in teaching and unity in being a member of the one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church. This is not a local church; it is universal.

 

[una_fides]

I understand. Let me see if I can put it down more directly. It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that after baptism, if a man commits a mortal sin, that he would lose his salvation. After baptism, anyone who committed a mortal sin and did not do penance would not regain salvation and would not be forgiven by God.

So, if you can lose your salvation, that is something that man alone does, not God. And if you can lose it, that means that you alone can “regain” it. Again, that is separate from God. God is DEPENDENT upon man for granting grace, instead of man being dependent on God for the granting of grace.

Furthermore, in order to regain salvation, a person must perform the sacrament of penance. This means that the individual must WORK in order to regain his salvation. Catholicism defines the sacrament of penance as having three parts:

1. 
   *]“contrition”
   *]"confession to a priest’
   *]“performance of works of satisfaction such as fasting, saying prayers, alms giving, or any other such works of piety which the priest should give him to do.”

1. 
   Let me explain a little about mortal sin. I also suggest reading up more on the subject such as from the catechism. First, we are not robots. God gives us a free will, and man has the ability to radically separate himself from God by freely choosing to act contrary to God’s grace. When a man does so, he forsakes God, and our Lord does not force him to stay. God gave us a free will to accept or reject him. After rejection, when man repents, you say that it is solely the man? Yet, when you claim that a man becomes “saved” he is merely accepting a gift?! Do you see the contradiction and double standard you are creating here? When we repent of our sins and confess them as Christ has commanded we are cooperating with his grace. It is God who draws us to confession, and it is God who forgives us in the confessional by his grace. It is not according to our works that he forgives us. The penance performed after a person has been absolved by God through his instrument the priest is merely there as a means for man to make up for what he has done wrong–to pay back for the temporal loss he has created. For example, when someone steals something it’s not enough to just say “God I’m sorry” for that will not undo the temporal harm that has been caused by the theft. A person who steals should make right the wrong to heal both the temporal problem as well as help him to fix the defect within himself. His sins have been forgiven, but the harm they’ve done still needs to be remedied in the temporal–not eternal–sense.
   
   The Bible clearly teaches about the distinction of sins:
   1 John 5:16-17 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. (17) All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
   
   Joh 15:2 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
   Joh 15:6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.
   Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.
   
   Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
   
   Here is the link to the catechism on sin: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm It will help explain it a little more for you.
   
   And here is the link to the Baltimore catechism on sin: catholicinformationcenteroninternet.org/Catechism/Part1/les5.toc.html
   
   Hope these can help you as you are learning about the Church’s teaching on this matter.
   

   But, if you must work to inherit eternal life, then you are working to “get brownie points with God.”

   You fail to distinguish between works of debt and works performed in Christ through grace. No matter how many good works a man does, God will never owe him anything. Good works performed outside of Christ do not benefit us. It is only when we work in Christ and cooperate with his grace that we can merit, meaning gain a reward for our labors in Christ. This teaching is entirely Biblical as Christ promises that we will be rewarded for our labors and will be repaid and judged according to our works.

 

[una_fides]

I confess I had never really studied what it was that “water” would mean, so your post provoked me to go back and take a much closer look. I found that I was wrong. “Water”, in this passage, is an ALLEGORICAL expression for the written word of God.

I admire your honesty in admitting you wrongfully interpreted that passage and that you did more research into it. Just to clarify, I recall that you were just claiming that your interpretation of the Scripture was the objective truth and that it was guided by the Holy Spirit so you knew that it was correct. If you could interpret this passage incorrectly, how do you know you have interpreted the rest of them correctly? Do you also notice that all of your interpretations fit in with your baptist beliefs that you already hold and held before reading the Scriptures. Your reading of the Bible and interpreting various passages according to this understanding then supports your preconceived beliefs. If you talk with people from other denominations that base their faith on sola Scriptura you will no doubt encounter the same thing. I mean no insult by this, but just as a point of example, even Jehovah’s Witnesses, who know the Bible quite well inside and out, will tell you that it agrees with them and that they have the objectively true understanding of the Scriptures. For me, the only way to know that I have interpreted them correctly is if the universal Church has always understood them that way from the beginning.

I’m also curious, could you tell me where you found this interpretation? You said you did some digging, so I’m curious if you consulted any outside sources that led you to come to this conclusion that wonders so incredibly far from the literal meaning of the text. And I thought baptists prided themselves on interpreting the Bible literally! It would seem that the baptist rule for interpreting is to interpret the text literally unless it doesn’t agree with other conclusions you’ve already made. I’m sure you can see the obvious subjectivity involved with such an application. Furthermore, what is your starting point? What passages do you begin interpreting literally and which do you understand as being clear and which do you stretch to fit your other ideas?

Also, just because those Bible scholars interpreted it that way 1500-2000 years ago, does not mean that they were correct.

They were not merely “Bible scholars” who interpreted things that way. In some cases they were the same bishops the apostles taught for years and who they themselves hand picked to take their places and succeed them in their ministry. These were people who lived within the lifetime of the apostles and within the generations following. They actually lived out the teachings that the apostles handed down to them. Some of the early Church fathers, who you write off as just some “Scripture scholars” were the same ones who compiled the books of the Bible and first declared that the list of NT books in your Bible today is inspired. Your OT is defective b/c your predecessors have removed several books and then have handed on that tradition since then. Luckily for you, Luther’s removal of the book of James, Jude, and Revelation did not catch on or you’d be missing even more today.

Here are a couple such fathers quotes:
** Justin Martyr**
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father… and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (First Apology 61 A.D. 151]).

** Tertullian**

[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life” (On Baptism 12:1 A.D. 203]).

Clement
But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: “Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Recognitions of Clement 6:9 A.D. 221]).

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0803fea2.asp
catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp

You would also expect at least to have found some record of at least someone in the early Church claiming that baptism did not save. But you don’t. It is quite difficult to swallow that all the Christians all over the known world were preaching such about baptism, and yet we have no record of so much as one person saying otherwise. We have records of many heretical teachings in the early Church, but baptism was not one that made into the heresy books until much much much later.

 

[jcrichton]

Well I guess Ill answer you one more time. You seem to be very fond of luther and his teachings so why not follow all of them. He taught that we were like a pile of cow dung, and when we were baptized it was like a new snow covering us and making us white. Under the snow we werent changed just covered, we remain the same pile of dung. He also taught that we should sin boldly for if we didnt then Christ died for nothing so do what ever you wish, you cant lose. He taught that if your wife had a headache then let the maid come, for there was no shame in sex with whomever since faith saved you. I think you should read more on this alcoholics life before you cling to him so strongly. He added the word alone to the scripture about being saved by faith. He claimed the book of James was an epistile of straw not worthy of use by any christian. I am part of the solution, and pray you will be also. I was like you a prodical son until I became tired of eating the husk with the hogs, and came home to the Church that HE founded and the gates of hell will not prevail against it, or a lot of other gates as well. I know you dont understand what that church is for if you truly did you like me, would be part of it. I was where you are and I have decided that you can think bad things about me and HIS church, but the one thing you cant do is stop me and this Church from loving you and praying for you understanding of what you seem to hate. To dispairage his church is to do the same to Him and to the one who sent Him. God love and keep you and may you be one in him soon. Garland

Hi, Garland!

Thanks for the info… I must confess that I do not read much (outside of the Bible)… though I am not doubting your statements (all I know about Luther is that program on pbs 13 ny–it was a general view of the event not the man…) is there a source (on-line since I am quite hard at reading through a whole book) where I can verify and download to my computer?

…wow, he went waaaaay past what I suspected might be eating him up!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Protestants never read John 3:16 in context. Just a few verses later in verse 21 Jesus says “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” Here Jesus does not emphasize those who believe but “whoever lives by the truth.” Jesus implies that they come into the light of faith precisely because they have been living in the truth. Jesus is not divorcing faith from works. He is identifying one with the other. Moreover. these are not boastful , self-righteous works done under the system of obligation, but works that have “been done through God.” Once again, we see the unfortunate tendency of Protestants to interpret Scripture’s use of faith to be faith alone which only appears in James 2:24 where it is denounced. Scripture never uses such terminology; rather, it invariably couples faith with the works in the realm of grace for the purposes of justification.

Well said!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Oh, I never said I was remaining silent. I simply said that I refuse to engage someone who was refusing to engage on a level of logic that actually was interested in defending their beliefs with REASON, and not arbitrarily shooting from the hip with a shotgun approach.

Reason is something that is quite maleable… if a person supports an idea, say killing babies in their Moms’ wombs, to that person it is reasonable to abort as many times as the pocket and the human body can withstand and everything that enhances or places a “good light” on that idealogy is seen as reason, while everything that challenges it is seen as lacking reason (idle) ; conversely, when something is not supported everything that is said/done is nonsence (idle)… but, perhaps you are right… I might be too pedestrian to put things together in a manner that is intelligible to you… I wouldn’t mind expanding on any post/statement that you may have found to be too obscured.

1. 
   *]I have no ability, nor authority to “curb your right to protest.”
   *]If that was a protest, I’d hate to see you rest your case!

1. 
   …again, maybe I am not as quick as you… but I could not but detect a condescending “Git!” from your post:
   

   I think I may just have to ignore you, because you don’t say ANYTHING. You post a bunch of Scriptures without comment, and then expect that they actually support your BELIEFS? Thanks for playing,here are some parting gifts…

   Maran atha!
   
   Angel

 

[jcrichton]

As I said, you’re not reading for comprehension. I never said anything of the sort. It’s impossible to debate you, because you make caricatures of what I’ve stated instead of actually quoting me as having said any such thing. You do know how to quote, don’t you?

…is that that little icon that has dashes, spaces, and dots, oh my?

I think that you are confusing quotations with summation–here it is: quotations are used to cite a person/statement word per word; summation is used to render a succint review expressing a conclusion. The beauty is that a summation may be challenged while it is improbable to do the same with a quotation…

If you differ with any of my summations, please feel free to challange them–but understand that you are providing the material from which my summations are made.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Confessing sins, in the tradition of the Catholic Church, is a work. It is a REQUIREMENT of those who wish to remain in grace (to go to heaven) to confess regularly. The seven sacraments of the Catholic Church are all about WORK, and have nothing to do with grace. Grace can only be received, and never earned.

Here are some more Biblical passages that might confuse you:

St. Matthew 16:18-20 (New International Version)
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

St. John 20:22-24
22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Jesus Authorizes Kephas and His other Disciples to forgive sin or to refrain from forgiving sin.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

St. John understands that we must confess our sins.

James 5:16a
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

St. James understand not only understands that there is a spiritual necessity for confessing sins but he even sees the curroption of sin translating into the temporal/physical life of the Believer.

How non-Catholics cannot understand this from Scriptures is perplexing to me!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

First you must be saved. The difference between your position and mine is “evangelical.” Catholicism puts the emphasis on works, while the evangelical puts the emphasis on faith.

The problem with that premise is that it is determined by the people/group who claim that they are saved. An empty faith is quite like zero times zero… Catholicism demands that your claim to “faith” be backed by the works of the Holy Spirit in you… in that you are correct we believe, as Jesus Teaches, that we are nothing without Him and that we cannot hide the “talent” given us in our assurance of salvation through our determined “I believe” or “I have faith.”

Example: Nicodemus has TONS of work, yet Jesus told him “Ye must be born again.” If Jesus had never said anything to Nicodemus, a Catholic would tell him that he had earned his way into heaven, that he was in a state of grace, because he had performed all that the church had required of him. Yet, Jesus did not give him that assurance, but told him he needed salvation.

 

[jcrichton]

Then you would be concluding wrongly. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a Catholic would miss the point. John 3:16 clearly states that “whoever believes [in Jesus] will have everlasting life. . .” Faith, according to Scripture, is a pre-requisite to everlasting life.

But it is not equated to Salvation. True, you must have Faith in Christ–but that is only the beginning… could you imagine Jesus making it so complex when all He had to tell Nicodemus: ‘…have faith and you’re saved…’ or to the rich young man: '…just have faith and you are saved…" Complexing as it may seem to you, Jesus did not say have faith but Taught them that they had to (the first) be born again and (the second) obey the Commandments, give up temporal values, and follow Him!

However, through hundreds of years of false teaching, the Catholic Church had turned the laity into drones who operated by works, instead of by faith. Instead of the format of the evangelicals whereby we insist that the congregant must begin in faith, the Catholic Church ignored this (and still does to this day) by placing the emphasis on being saved by Baptism (a work of man), instead of the Spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Isn’t wonderful to know better than Christ?:

St. Matthew 21:32
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

29(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. 30But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.) (St. Luke 7:29-30)

Then you don’t know what it is. I proposed Luther as an example of one breaking out of the Catholic rut of WORKING your way to heaven - by relying on man’s good works and achievements, instead of resting in the finished work of Christ on the Cross.

Did you pick up on Luther’s other teachings?

The problem with many Catholics (and a lot of Protestants) is that they misinterpret salvation to be “faith PLUS works” whereas James simply stated that works were inseparable from a saving faith. While the difference is subtle, it is a HUGE difference in practical and spiritual terms.

So… “once saved always saved?”

It’s like me saying that I get to work by my car, and then James comes along and says “You cannot get to work without the tires being put on the car.” They both say the same thing, but James goes a bit further in proving that a car without wheels is just as useless as faith without works.

Your analogy is flawed–Salvation on Faith alone is much like a car without wheels; they are both useless. Yet, while the wheels are a functioning part of the car (till technology advances beyond the need of wheels) “Faith” produces not a single work:

1 Corinthians 12:11
All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22)

2 Thessalonians 2:13
Stand Firm ] But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

The works of the Holy Spirit do not spring forth from man’s “faith” but they are a product of the Holy Spirit!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mikeledes]

And that is my whole point: if you can only obtain eternal life THROUGH the sacraments, then it is clear that you must WORK in order to inherit eternal life. This is different than the Protestant scheme which states that works flow from faith, whereas Catholics say that faith flows from works.

Hi Pepcis. Sorry that I’m addressing your posts in a piecemeal fashion, but I don’t have a lot of time right now. Catholics have never

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It seems Pepcis is building his theology from the notion of “imputation of Christ’s righteousness.” IF SO, then much of what he says flows logically from that, even though it might not mesh with other Scripture. I’d say the real problem here though is that the concept of imputation of Christ’s righteousness is simply not found in Scripture, thus the very foundation from which he’s building is flawed.

 

[PEPCIS]

"una fides:

You keep speaking of the Bible as if it objectively just agreed with your interpretation of it.

PEPCIS:

No, I speak as if I have objectively interpreted the Bible. It is WE who must agree with the Bible, not the Bible agree with us.

There are many thousands of other protestant denominations who claim the same thing yet they all disagree on virtually every issue in the Book down to every fundamental one.

There are many thousands of Christian groups/sects/religions/denominations which claim to have the “correct” interpretation. Very true. Among them are the Catholics.
una fides:

How is anyone to know who has the correct interpretation?

That’s a good question. Partly, you can tell if you’re on the right track by considering what other Christians have already said about the particular passage - despite your objections to the contrary. We all must assume that we are being guided by the Holy Spirit - despite your objections to the contrary, as if only the Pope were guided thusly.

The point is that if I were to make an interpretation which was not shared by even one other individual, I’d have to reconsider what it was that I was thinking, and how did I come to such a conclusion/interpretation. That’s why Joseph Smith erred - because he refused to analyze his interpretations and check them against other Christians - and because he probably just wanted to be important and lead a new church group.

Another important point to consider is our Christian perspective. When we consider the differences between liberals and conservatives, it is clear that the main difference is found in the way that these two groups of people interpret the events of the world around them. It all comes down to their world-view. The same can be said of Christians, that they will fall on one side or the other, depending on their view of Christ and the Church.

Your “Christ-view” helps you to interpret Bible passages consistently. The real issue between you and I is not so much how we interpret the Bible, because we are each being consistent in the manner in which we do that. The real issue is our “Christ-view.” Your Christ-view leads you to hold the Catholic Church in high regard, regardless of the interpretation of other Christian groups. To you, every single group which departed from the Church (all the way to present-day Christian groups) are in error, and are in danger of hell because they fail to come under the grace available in the sacraments - what you deem to be the only available avenue for such grace.

 

[PEPCIS]

una fides:

Obviously if they are all claiming the same thing as you, which is that they are all “correctly interpreting the Bible,” then they are going wrong somewhere. They are all claiming the same Holy Spirit is guiding them but to vastly different conclusions.

The problem with your assertion is that Catholics are included in this myriad of groups. You’d like to separate yourself from it all by taking the high road, as if somehow Catholics are “privileged” people, and that God has only blessed the Catholic Church. That is the height of folly, IMHO.

You do not possess the only interpretation of the Bible.

PEPCIS:

How many interpretations are there that are true?

una fides:

There is only one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism; just as there is only one Church that possesses the one truth.

How quaint. But, I disagree with your assessment. There are many interpretations of a particular passage within the Catholic Churches.
una fides:

You claim your Baptist church, which started up over a century and a half after Christ . . .

The Baptist Church is part of the Universal body of Christ. Your assertions to the contrary cannot change that.
una fides:

. . .only to let that truth be lost for over 1500 years until people started reading a Bible canonized by the “false Church” that took over and somehow spread across the universal world and then interpreted this Bible according to whatever fancy they could conjur up:::::gasp::::::and you want me to believe that is the true Church?

1. 
   *]Firstly, I never stated that the Roman Catholic Church was the “false Church”, or the anti-Christ, or anything like that.
   *]Secondly, the Catholic Church is subject to the same frailties and errors that the rest of the Christian church is.
   una fides:
   

   There is only one Catholic faith. Your feeble attempt to throw out numbers you found in a Jack Chick track won’t work on any educated persons.

   You claim that there is only “one Catholic faith” and that, like it or not, I am outside of the faith if I am outside of the “one Catholic faith/church.” Yet you attempt to insult me with false accusations? How is that attempting to stress “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ”? (Eph. 4:13)
   
   The fact is, the Catholic Church does have false doctrine, just as you can find within Protestant denominations. If you cannot admit that, I’m not sure how that is my problem.

 

[PEPCIS]

We do not have a divine right to interpret Scripture any way we want.

I have never said anything to the contrary, and you have never shown how it is that I am wrongly interpreting it.

Who gets to have the final say as to the correct interpretation?

PEPCIS:

The local Church.

una fides:

To which of the many thousands different sects of local protestant churches are you referring?

The one that I belong to. Duh.
una fides:

The one that agrees with you and your interpretation of Scripture, which you claim to be the only “objective interpretation”?

I have never said that my church is the only one with the correct “objective interpretation.” What I do say is that each local church must guide and govern their congregations’ spiritual life. They are ultimately responsible. In the end, out of the thousands of different church’s/people groups/etc, there are very, very few differences of interpretation of God’s Word.

There are groups which place an emphasis on foot washing, both in Catholic and Protestant circles. But that does not mean that we should disfellowship with them, or that they are in error.
una fides:

One of the most important things we can possibly do when approaching discussions on God’s Word is to humble ourselves and realize that we can be wrong and can come to wrong conclusions on even foundational things. Until we detach ourselves from what we believe in the sense of taking a few steps back and examining it to see whether it is reasonable and with readiness to admit error, we will truly be lost in our own prideful conclusions. We must–myself included–humbly beg for light from heaven willing to forsake anything for God and for His truth. We are not God, and we must realize his ways and thoughts are high above ours. So we then approach as beggars imploring his grace and light to guide us into the truth.

Agreed.

I don’t stick to anything that resembles tradition.

una fides:

If that is the case, then you wouldn’t go to a baptist church.

Well, so far you haven’t shown where it is that I’ve clung to tradition, other than to accuse me of being a Baptist. Oh, for shame!!!

 

[PEPCIS]

"mikeledes:

Hi Pepcis. I disagree with the argument that the sacraments create a false sense of salvation and that this is a result of the teachings of the Church.

PEPCIS:

I understand. Let me see if I can put it down more directly. It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that after baptism, if a man commits a mortal sin, that he would lose his salvation. After baptism, anyone who committed a mortal sin and did not do penance would not regain salvation and would not be forgiven by God. (edited due to lack of space)

. . . if you believe that God’s bestowal of grace (specifically the grace of justification) through a sacrament is a work

and thus making that which is received something earned and not a gift, then Scripture teaches “works salvation” and that a gift of God is “earned.”

Stop it. Catholics don’t get to take the gift of grace which they RIGHTLY assign to justification as being a free gift that cannot be earned, and extending that to ALL THE SACRAMENTS equally. That’s not what I stated, and I was very careful not to include “initial justification” into my statement. That’s why I said “After baptism, anyone who committed a mortal sin and did not do penance would not regain salvation and would not be forgiven by God.”

That is what needs to be addressed, not your rabbitt trail regarding initial justification.