How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[PEPCIS]

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.

But that’s not what the Bible teaches. The Bible clearly teaches that there are many who will come to Jesus in “that day” and tell Him all the great and wonderfully good works that they have performed IN HIS NAME. Yet Jesus will say to them, “depart from me you workers of evil.” Incredible! Yet true.

“King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest” (Acts 26:27). But this faith did not save him. He had “faith” and actually believed. Even the devils believe, yet they tremble. (James 2:19) Such faith can even serve to give false confidence to a professed believer. As I stated earlier, this is nothing more than a sunshine Christian, who easily walks away from his faith when persecution arrives.

 

[mikeledes]

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.

I’m not sure what you mean by the first sentence. The grace of justification is first subjectively appropriated through the sacrament of Baptism, as taught by Scripture, the early Church Fathers, and even Martin Luther. However, when someone falls from grace and need to be restored to grace, then the following steps must be taken:

1. Believe
2. Repent
3. Confess

We believe that when you believe and repent, God restores the grace of justification through the sacrament of confession, the same way he gave the grace of justification through the sacrament of Baptism. The grace of justification is not subjectively appropriated by doing good works, it is subjectively appropriated through a genuine faith and repentance. Penance, Pepcis, is performed after you have received absolution (i.e forgiveness), *not * before.

So there is no “rabbit trail” here. The same way God first gives us the *unmerited *grace of justification for the first time in the sacrament of Baptism, He restores us to the grace of justification in the sacrament of confession and this is subjectively appropriated through repentance and faith. Penance is something that you do after you are restored to a state of grace, not before.

BTW, Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church believe in confession and absolution - though they don’t have “penance.” Here is an interesting article on the subject:

lifeoftheworld.com/believe/waconfessionabsolution.php

Luther also said:

Because absolution or the power of the keys is also a comfort and help against sin and a bad conscience and was instituted by Christ in the gospel, confession, or absolution, should by no means be allowed to fall into disuse in the church–especially for the sake of weak consciences and for the wild young people, so that they may be examined and instructed in Christian teaching….Because private absolution is derived from the office of the keys, we should not neglect it but value it highly, just as all the other offices of the Christian church. (Smalcald Articles III, 8)

He also said:

**So if there is a heart that feels its sin and desires comfort, it has here a sure refuge where it finds and hears God’s Word because through a human being God looses and absolves from sin….We urge you, however, to confess and express your needs, not for the purpose of performing a work but to hear what God wants to say to you. The Word or absolution, I say, is what you should concentrate on, magnifying and cherishing it as a great and wonderful treasure to be accepted with all praise and gratitude. …

Thus we teach what a wonderful, precious, comforting thing confession is, and we urge that such a precious blessing should not be despised, especially when we consider our great need. If you are a Christian, you need neither my compulsion nor the pope’s command at any point, but you will force yourself to go and ask me that you may share in it. However, if you despise it and proudly stay away from confession, then we must come to the conclusion that you are not a Christian and that you also ought not receive the sacrament [of the Altar]. For you despise what no Christian ought to despise, and you show thereby that you can have no forgiveness of sin. …

If you are a Christian, you should be glad to run more than a hundred miles for confession, not under compulsion but rather coming and compelling us to offer it. For here the compulsion must be reversed; we are the ones who must come under the command and you must come in freedom. We compel no one, but allow ourselves to be compelled, just as we are compelled to preach and administer the sacrament.

Therefore, when I exhort you to go to confession, I am doing nothing but exhorting you to be a Christian….For those who really want to be upright Christians and free from their sins, and who want to have a joyful conscience, truly hunger and thirst already**. (Large Catechism, “A Brief Exhortation to Confession” [Kolb/Wengert 478-479:14, 22, 28, 30, 32])

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

I also believe that a person can start off with living faith and then fail to bear fruit and end with a dead faith ( 2 Peter 1:9).

PEPCIS:

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 don’t believe that Jesus is lying because I don’t believe those He speaks about in that passage were genuinely converted.

???

That’s MY point!!! These people BELIEVED that they had sufficient faith - coupled with good works - to gain salvation. It is those people that both Jesus and Peter are addressing when they speak.

mikeledes:

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.

I don’t see much sense in continuing this conversation. But I will give one more “go” at it.

The parable of the sower and the seed shows how the Word of God actually gets into the heart and life of a potential believer. He “believes” for a while, but then falls away by the cares of the world, etc. Were his sins forgiven him BEFORE he fell away from the faith?

There was definitely a work of grace achieved, yet this person fell away from the faith. I maintain that such a faith is a dead faith, because it is incapable of achieving any lasting effect. This person’s salvation was never perfected. Yet Peter could easily say to him that he “forgot” that his sins were forgiven him.

 

[mikeledes]

But that’s not what the Bible teaches. The Bible clearly teaches that there are many who will come to Jesus in “that day” and tell Him all the great and wonderfully good works that they have performed IN HIS NAME. Yet Jesus will say to them, “depart from me you workers of evil.” Incredible! Yet true.

“King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest” (Acts 26:27). But this faith did not save him. He had “faith” and actually believed. Even the devils believe, yet they tremble. (James 2:19) Such faith can even serve to give false confidence to a professed believer. As I stated earlier, this is nothing more than a sunshine Christian, who easily walks away from his faith when persecution arrives.

The funny thing is that when Scripture talks about “dead faith”, it is talking about a faith that does not have works.

James 2:17,26

17Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
26For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

The passage in Matthews is not talking about people who have a faith without works (i.e. dead faith), but people who never had faith at all. A dead faith, as defined by the Bible, is a faith without works. Hence according to Scripture, that group would not fall under “dead faith.”

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

???

 

[mikeledes]

This person’s salvation was never perfected. Yet Peter could easily say to him that he “forgot” that his sins were forgiven him.

Again, I cannot believe that the meaning of the word “forgot” is in dispute. This sounds like Clinton’s redefinition of the words “is” and “sex.” Have you ever used “forgot” as referring to something you never knew or never experienced in an honest way? When you ask for a name that you never knew, do you tell the person “I’m sorry I *forgot * your name” or “I’m sorry, but I don’t know name?” If you purposely ]left your wallet at home or actually know that you have it in your pocket, would you tell a person that you '“forgot” it and not consider it a lie? And if someone did that to you, would you say they really forgot or they DID NOT forget and lied? I think that it is quite clear what “forgot” means and anyone objectively reading this thread knows that “forgot” is never grammatically used to refer to something that one never knew or experienced. And if the Bible was redefining a word in a way that is not commonly used, you also have not provided a single Biblical use of the word “forget” as a reference to something one never knew or experienced.

Besides, Peter does not say they forgot their faith - which can easily be interpreted by some Protestants as referring to a “false” or “dead” faith. Rather, Peter says that he has forgotten that he was cleansed from his former or past sins:

**9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. **

It is undisputed that Peter is not lying when he says “forgotten.” If the Spirit (name removed by moderator)sired him to use this word, it’s because this word is precisely what the Spirit wanted. If he did not mean “forget” as it is commonly understood, don’t you think he would have logically used a word that would clearly express what he meant. For example:

For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has never beencleansed from his old sins

But the way Peter uses the word makes it clear that what they have “forgotten” is an event they subjectively experienced - it says his sins. A person who had “dead” or “false” faith can never subjectively experience a cleansing from sins. And if he was never cleansed, then those sins are not “old” or “former” for they are still present. The word “former” or “old” clearly refers to an event that occured in the past. Therefore, it is clear based on objective rules of semantics and grammar that this person - as the passage clearly states - was cleansed from his old sins and that the person had forgotten about this event he knew about and* experienced*.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

John 15:1-6 states the following:

**1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

In order to avoid the implications of this passage, many Protestants want us to believe that when Christ says “every branch in Me”, he means “a person that is a member of My visible body (i.e. the Church) but that has not been spiritually united to Me.” Consequently, they make a distinction between being “in Christ” and being “in His visible body.” There are serious problems with this analysis. First of all, what does Jesus say “the Vine” represents? From the very beginning, Jesus establishes the meaning of “the Vine.” The “Vine” refers not to a congregation or a visible organization, but to the person of Christ. And hence being a member of the Vine means being a member of Christ and not mere membership in a congregation. Branches are logically united to the vine and thus this metaphoric branch must be united to the person of Christ.

Moreover, if “in me” means mmbership in a congregation, then we end up with ridiculous conclusions that even a Protestant if we consistently replaced “in me” in this passage with “in my church” - since if “in me” means “in the visible church” in John 15:2, then it must mean that in the rest of the passage. Otherwise, we’re being arbitrary in how we define words:

**1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in a Christian congregation that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in a Christian congregation /I] and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in a Christian congregation."
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide *in a Christian congregation *he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

So are Protestants willing to admit that we bear fruit because we are members of a Christian congregation or because of a vital union with the person of Christ?

Second of all, in *every* instance we find “in me” or a variant (i.e. “in him”, "in the Son", etc.), it means a spiritual and salvific union with Christ (John 6:56, 2 Corithians 5:17, 1 John 2:24, 28, 3:24, etc.) Many Protestants even admit that all the other uses of “in me” in John 15 refer to a spiritual and salvific union with Christ. So then why do they suddenly break away from the standard definition and use – by Christ and John - of “in Me” when it comes to John 15:2, making it the *only* exception to the rule?

Continued in next post…**

 

[mikeledes]

The third problem is that the “false professor” argument contradicts Jesus’s own words. False professors can fool Christians, but they can never fool Christ. The “branch” in question is not the one identifying himself as being “in Christ” or having spiritual union with Christ. It is *Christ Himself *who identifies this person as being “in Me.” Christ knows those who are His and I would highly doubt He would identify a false professor as being “in Him,” a phrase that He and the Bible always uses as a reference to those who are genuinely saved.

The fourth problem with the “false professor” argument is the use of the word “abide.”
John 15:6:

6If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned

The word “abide” - in Greek meno – means to remain, to stay, or to continue in the place or state you are already in:

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3306

We find a variant of this same Greek word (epimeno) in Romans 11:22-23, which has a similar theme and clearly refers to true Christians:

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in (epimeno) His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in (epimeno) their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

So in essence, what John 15:6 is saying is “If a man does *not continue * or stay in me….” How can you continue in something that you were never a part of in the first place?

Moreover, notice the order of events given by Jesus in this verse:

1)cast forth
2)withered
3)burned

The withering is a* result of the casting off, not vice versa. This makes sense because once a branch is cut off from a vine, it withers because it no longer partakes of the life giving sap of the vine. Moroever, the fact that this person “withers” after being cut off means that it was once alive*. Obviously, the “withering” does not refer to physical death, but spiritual death. The life in question is thus spiritual life and its origin is in the spiritual Vine (i.e. Christ). Therefore, this person once partook of the spiritual life that is found in Christ, but he was cut off and thus no longer partakes of this life and withers/dies.

God Bless,
Michae

 

[jcrichton]

That was a good answer, and it is the RIGHT answer on how all believers should approach a holy life. It is exactly what James taught regarding faith and works. Yet I continue to stand by my position that the Catholic Church, by and large, teaches a works-based system of belief.

Your personal convictions are yours to keep; atheists have their own personal convictios… I say so what? Holding an opinion does not make it right!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This is incorrect. The sacraments are means established by Christ through which God bestows His grace. In other words, they are not works by which you earn grace. Rather, they are 7 ways God bestows His gifts.

2 Timothy 1:6

**6 Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God **which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

My point is this. The fact that God choses to bestow a gift through a particular act - in this case, the laying on of hands - does not make that act a meritorious work or that which is recieved through that act something earned. Timothy subjected himself to this act (laying on of hands) and yet that which he received through this act is called a gift of God.

The Bible clearly states that God bestows the grace of justification through the sacrament of Baptism:

Acts 2:38

**38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ **FOR the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

We are to be baptized in the name of the Lord FOR the forgiveness of sins.

Acts 22:16

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

This was the unanimous teaching of the Church for the first 300 years - as evidenced by the writings of early Church Fathers - and was the unanimous teaching of Christianity until John Calvin. “Faith alone” Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration and the Lutheran Church continues to teach that. In addition, “faith alone” Martin Luther also believed and taught confession and absolution, as does the Lutheran church today.

God Bless,
Michael

…say it isn’t so… do you mean to say that the disciples have, in essence, abandoned their teachers’ doctrines? :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It is clear from this thread that the Bible can be interpreted in various ways depending on the color of the glasses you wear. Out there in the non-Catholic world there are thousands of glasses of various shades. Our division in Christianity has become a great stumbling block for non-Christians (those people whom some of us lightly dismiss as destined to the eternal hellfire). Looking at us from the outside, they are led to believe that our book is full of contradictions. If they remain outside the fold because we could not agree, and go to hell (as our non-Catholic brothers maintain) is it not partly our fault?
Jesus, being clear-headed saw the need for an interpreter of our faith and expectedly He gave us such a body. Those outside the Church have the impression that the authorities in the Church are just bunch of ignoramuses dishing out this doctrines and that.Not only that, they attribute bad faith to those authorities. I suggest that people read and find out the credentials of those people who contributed in the development of doctrines and study how these beliefs have become official. When we ride on a plane we need to be sure about the credentials of the pilot and the tract record of the airline (actually we rely on governmental authority to do this). Average Catholics do rely on similar ‘governmental authorities’ which is the Catholic Church. For the others let them examine the credentials and ‘track records’ meticulously of the ‘plane’ that will carry them to the most important destination!

You’ve touched on one of the most important factors why hollowood and the likes are so successful in creating false doctrines (their latest export: ‘it takes evil to do good’); I do not doubt that we will continue to lose the youth and novice (those who profess to be Christians–both Catholics and non-Catholics) as they are bombarded with everything “love,” “tolerance,” “unity” or “hope;” regardless of how anti-Christian the philosophies might be.

I pray that the Holy Spirit enlighten us all to understand that Jesus was literal when He Commanded us to be one and to Love one another–as a sign to the world that we are His disciples!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[una_fides]

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

And what sets apart the Catholic faith from all the rest is the fact that it actually began 2000 years ago and traces its founder not to a religious innovator (i.e. Luther, Calvin, etc) but to Christ himself who founded the Church and promised that against her not even the gates of hell would prevail.

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.

That’s a great observation. I completely agree that if no one else is interpreting the teachings of Christ the same way you are then there would certainly be a problem. Something for us to keep in mind is that there have been people around for the past 2000 years interpreting and living out the teachings of Christ as best as they can know how. Now imagine that you lived in about AD 100 around when the last book of the Bible was finished being written. You would expect to find the Christians all over the world in the various Churches that the Apostle Paul and the other Apostles founded to be generally speaking teaching and holding to the same foundational doctrines correct? Then go just 100 years later, you wouldn’t expect the faith to dramatically change around the world either. Even today if you pick a certain protestant sect or even a non-Christian sect, generally speaking they tend to hold to pretty much the same things within 100 years of teaching and passing on the teachings to their children and living them out over that time. Even several centuries should be no problem at all. Then we realize that we are a part of the REAL and ONLY true faith established by the incarnate Word himself, Jesus Christ. He also left his Church the Holy Spirit to keep it rooted in his truth and guided it to select and compiled the books of Scripture and to continue in the teachings Christ handed down to the apostles.

The thing is, when we read the accounts of the generations of the successors appointed by the apostles regarding baptism and these other foundational and fundamental teachings you do not find any of them agreeing with a figurative interpretation of water baptism. So if you lived in AD 100 or 200, 300, 500, or 1000, you would be seeing that the body of Christians all over the world unanimously had accepted these teachings on baptism and understood them as coming from the apostles themselves and read and understood Scripture as supporting this teaching. When we say that we do not go against the universal understanding of Christians, then the teachings of the early Church fathers should become all the more important and significant in our search for the correct understanding of the books of Scripture, which they compiled.

…

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.

Actually it is not that I am simply ignoring the interpretation of other groups which are interpreting Scripture; it’s that these various groups departed from the universal understanding of all Christians at the various times that they decided to split from the Church. And actually, it wasn’t really “groups” that split from the Church per se. What typically happened, if you read about the history of heresies, such as the Arian heresy, etc, is that there would be a particularly charismatic leader who would depart from the universal understanding of the Church and then would begin spreading his teachings to others who would then listen to him rather than listen to the rest of the universal Church and her leaders, the successors to the apostles. That’s why heretical and schismatic groups are most commonly named after their founders. You cannot trace the Catholic Church to any other leader or founder in history other than Christ himself. That is why I hold the Church in such a high regard, because it is the continuation of the teachings of Christ throughout the centuries. The opinions of those who came up with teachings much later based on the books that she herself compiled and gave to the world do not hold the same weight as coming from the universal acknowledgement of the Church fathers and the Church with which Christ himself vested with his authority to teach all nations and which he promised to be with and continue to assist and guide by the power and in the unity of the Holy Spirit until the end of time.

 

[una_fides]

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.

I do believe that these groups and the individuals in these groups are in danger of hell. And to be honest we all are to some extent or another as none of us are guaranteed heaven, but yes, those who are separated from the Church through no fault of their own are most certainly in a state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation because they are deprived from the many heavenly helps that God has given us in his Church through her teachings and most especially her sacraments. Christ’s sacraments are the ordinary means by which God gives sanctifying grace to his people.

Though man is bound to the sacraments, God is not, and he can choose to operate and bestow grace upon people as he sees fit. Hence, we believe in a baptism by desire (such as for example in the case of catechumens) or a baptism by blood (such as the case for martyrs for Christ who have not been able to be baptized.) I could explain these in more depth but it seems that we may be getting a little off track with this discussion.

 

[una_fides]

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

There is agreement on the fundamentals and yes the fundamentals have been defined. There can be no question for example that Jesus is truly God and truly man, the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ, etc, etc. There can be disagreement where disagreement is permitted. Anything that goes beyond the authority of the Church and what the Church has defined is simply not Catholic.

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.
   
   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.

1. 
   I never said that you claimed the Catholic Church to be the anti-Christ, but if I did wrongfully assess any of your thoughts or sounded as if I did, then I apologize. Nevertheless, if you think about it, I don’t really see how you can view the Catholic Church as a “true Church” yet say that she has false doctrine. She herself claims that she does not have false doctrine and that she is the only true Church. She either is the true Church, which she claims she is and which she has claimed to be from the beginning, or she is not. And again, you didn’t exactly answer my historical assessment in which I pointed out what to me seems to be quite and unreasonable conclusion that Christ left his Church in absolute error immediate after founding her until 1500 years later people then began to discover the hidden teachings of the apostles that the Church dispersed throughout the entire world had missed from the death of the apostles until that time.

 

[una_fides]

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

Actually I and others on this thread have pointed out the errors of interpretation that have been presented concerning sola fide, but that doesn’t mean that you’ve seen that light. The early Church fathers also demonstrate quite clearly that you are interpreting different than how Christians did in the earliest centuries.

The one that I belong to. Duh.

Here’s a question for you. If you lived in AD 100, 200, 300, 500, or 1000, what local church would have the authority to teach?

Another thing to consider is the subjectivity involved in saying that a particular local church has been vested with the correct interpretation and divine right to settle matters of dispute concerning interpreting Scripture based on the criteria that it agrees with how you already interpret Scriptures. Also consider what happens when you change churches. I don’t know your history or whether you’ve been baptist all your life, but if your interpretation of Scripture changes or perhaps if you are confronted with another denomination’s teachings that appeal to you and you then decide to change churches, then this new church denomination now has been given a divine right to settle matters of dispute in Scripture?

I have never said that my church is the only one with the correct “objective interpretation.”

Actually what you said is that you know your interpretation is correct because it is the only objective approch. And if the local church you belong to has the right to settle matters of disptuted interpretations of Scriptures, then you would obviosly be believing that they agree with your only “objective approach.”

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.

Actually there are very many differences on virtually if not all of the fundamental issues of the faith. This statement tells me that you likely either haven’t studied the various interpretations and teachings from the many different protestant sects or that you are merely downplaying their number for the purpose of your arugment. I’m suspecting it’s the former. Just to let you know, before I converted to the Catholic faith, I had gone to the following protestant churches or schools and had heard and studied their various different teachings: episcopalean, charismatic, pentacostal, baptist, presbyterian, several “non-denominational” churches, fundamentalist, church of Christ, and I’ve also been exposed to many other protestant sects and their teachings as well. They disagree on whether baptism saves you or is just and ordinance, whether to baptize infants or not, salvation by faith alone, faith and works, faith and works and baptism, faith and works and speaking in tongues, faith alone which also includes believing in a pre-tribulational rapture, faith which also includes only reading from the KJV, I could go on and on listing various things I’ve heard and read and been quoted Scriptures in support.

Here’s a text that some pentacostals use to say that if you are not baptized by the Spirit and then speak in tongues, then you’re not saved:
Mark 16:17-18 “And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils. They shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents: and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay their hand upon the sick: and they shall recover.”

You’ve probably seen or heard of the Christian serpent charmers who also use these verses as proof texts to support their practices.

When you’re only source is your interpretation of Scripture, it is so easy to come to so many different conclusions and believe wholeheartedly that they are correct. That’s why Christ did not leave us alone to interpret Scripture. He actually left us with one Church with one set of teachings that can be traced throughout history back to the days of the apostles.

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.

Foot washing is a custom not a doctrine.

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!!!

You must not have read what I said about being a baptist and where the baptist denomination came from and how that was a result of the passing down of their teachings throughout the generations. If you are a baptist, you are following baptist tradition.

 

[una_fides]

There was definitely a work of grace achieved, yet this person fell away from the faith. I maintain that such a faith is a dead faith, because it is incapable of achieving any lasting effect. This person’s salvation was never perfected. Yet Peter could easily say to him that he “forgot” that his sins were forgiven him.

Salvation is not “perfected” until we are perfected. One can have a most sincere and genuine and strong faith, but you cannot take away free will. People have the most sincere conversions, but later many decide they love sin or themselves more than God and loose their faith and fall away. They may also come back or may not. I am a living example that disproves the “true saving faith” will never be lost theory. Growing up protestant, I believed wholeheartedly in Jesus and the whole “accepting Christ as my personal savior.” I know I had a very strong faith and if anyone would have asked if I had saving faith, I would have believed completely that I did. At about the age of 14, I started hanging out with a bad crowd of people and departed from the morals I had learned and I forsook Christ and his teachings and lived life the way I wanted to without any regard for God at all. At about 18, a dramatic experience brought me back to seeking God, and I eventually mended my ways. Did I have saving faith when I was 13? Was I a Christian or did I just sincerely but wronfully believe I was with all my heart? And if I was saved then, I most certainly after that denied Christ by my actions and regard for the things of God. A baptist friend of mine told me that God wouldn’t let me die in that state without returning to him because I had saving faith as a youth. I find that incredibly hard to believe with the many millions and millions of Christians that none ever had sincere faith at one point in their lives and then died away from God. Such a view demonstrates sincere ignorance as well as a sort of denial of man’s free will to choose God and then later choose to reject him. Furthermore, if one cannot know he is saved unless he has enduring faith and if one can at any time loose faith before he die, then you could only know if you are saved if your faith endures until the end. Most baptists however teach that you know you are saved at the moment you pray your prayer of salvation. But then again, there are many differing views on this issue in baptist circles, but such is no surprise.

 

[mikeledes]

For the same token, “forgot” is not used in the LITERAL sense, but in a FIGURATIVE sense, indicating that they were told, they had learned, and they had practiced Christianity, but had never fully owned it. They had “forgotten” what they had been told. But in this context, since they had never truly accepted Christ as their personal savior, they could never truly “remember.” It’s a play on words.

What had been forgotten, Pepcis, is not what they have been told or taught. What had been forgotten is what they have experienced.

**9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. **

Peter is pretty straightforward. There is no indication that they never believed in Christ. In fact, it says the opposite. The “context” you’re referring to is the theological framework you’re using to interpret the passagaeand this theological framework forces you to read into the text a “figurative” use of the word “forgotten.” There is no objective reason to claim that Peter is using “a play on words.” That’s being read into the text, not gleaned from it.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

More importantly, where does it say that a Muslim IS NOT automatically saved simply by worshipping the same Creator (which we know he does not).

Nor does it state that Islam IS NOT an alternative road to heaven.

But this does not say that “the only way to heaven is through Christ.” Instead, it speaks about some ethereal means of achieving salvation OUTSIDE OF THE NAME OF CHRIST.

It is “popish speculation” precisely because the Pope is suggesting that God’s grace operates outside of the knowledge of Christ to effect salvation. That is unbiblical.

As I said, the better question is why the Church did not say that? The Lumen Gentium says that a Muslim who is, “through no fault of his own” worshipping the same God as I am, and being given the grace from God, could be saved. The Lumen Gentium states that if this Muslim were to “do [God’s] will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” That’s using Islam to get to heaven, because he would be doing God’s will as it was revealed through Islam, and by the dictates of his conscience (which is formed by Islamic teachings).

I find it ironic that you are not using the same standard to interpret this quote from Lumen Gentium that you claim to use in your interpretation of the Bible. You’re taking a quote *out of context *and then interpreting they way you think it should be interpreted. Just out of curiosity, have you ever read what the Catechism has to say about this? Have you ever read the late Pope John Paul II’s Dominus Jesus - which caused some controversy among non-Catholics and non-Christians and taught against religious indifferentism or that there are alternative ways to heaven apart from Christ?

As a Catholic, I have never come across as a reliable Catholic source that claims Islam is an alternative way to heaven. The idea of what’s right and wrong is not limited to Christianity, Pepcis. In many religions that have had no contact with Christianity, murder, theft, adultery, etc. are considered wrong. Why? Because God has written His law in every man’s heart:

Romans 2:14-16

** 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.**

God’s moral law can be known without the light of Divine Revelation because it is inscribed in man’s hearts. So those laws within Islam against murder, adultery, theft, etc. correspond to the moral law of God. The Catholics Church, Pepcis, does not teach that merely being invincibly ignorant of the Gospel gives you an automatic pass to heaven. A person who had never been exposed to the Gospel and yet knowingly, defiantly, and without any remorse or contrition violates a precept of the moral law of God cannot get into heaven. That’s why Lumen Gentiusm talks about someone who, moved by grace, *seeks God *by conforming to His moral law. So when it talks about doing good, it is not talking about the precepts of Islam, but God’s moral law inscribed in every man heart, which finds expression in a number of Islam’s moral precepts. The Catholic Church explicitly affirms that anyone who is saved is saved by Christ, not apart from Him. If you don’t believe me, then read Dominus Iesus or read reliable Catholic sources. Moreover, Lumen Gentium is only talking about the possiblitly of salvation, not they they will be saved.

Since this aspect of the discussion is degenerating into a “Yes it is/ No it isn’t” thing, I leave it to other Catholics to continue this if they want to. IMO, you’re mind seems to be set on what it means and no further discussion will change that. I prefer to focus on the actual topic of this thread and I again suggest that you should create a new thread.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Man, you must be in a totally different world than the one that I live in!! These “invincibly ignorant people” are doing anything but “cooperating with the grace available to them”, and could NEVER be justified outside of the knowledge of Christ. In fact, when presented with the gospel of grace, they spit on it, and reject it outright. That’s not just MY experience, but the experience of the multitude of Christianity. Maybe you haven’t heard, but the GREATEST persecution of Christianity is in Muslim countries, where they are anything but cooperating with the grace that can free them from the grips of hades.

Uh…if they have been exposed to the Gospel of Christ, Pepcis, then they are not completely ignorant. Lumen Gentium applies to those who are invincibly ignorant of the Gospel.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Pepcis
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?

Apparently, he hasn’t.

Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, confession to a minister and absolution, and that even that forgiveness of sins is delivered in the “Sacrament of the Altar.”

lifeoftheworld.com/lotw/06-03/06-03-02.php

If believing that through the sacraments God applies spiritual benefits/gifts (i.e. the grace of justification, growth in grace, etc), then not only do Catholics have a “works based salvation,” but Luther also taught a way to work your way to heaven.

God Bless,
Michael