How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[PEPCIS]

Do fully you agree with the following Refomed explanation of this part of the Westminster Confession by Robert Shaw:

With regard to the order of faith and repentance, it may be remarked, that we can form no conception of a moment of time when the one exists in the soul separate from the other. In point of time, then, faith and repentance necessarily accompany each other; but in the order of nature, faith must precede repentance. Evangelical repentance is a turning from sin to God; but there can be no turning to God, except through Christ; and no coming to Christ, but by believing in him.–John xiv. 6, vi. 35. Besides, evangelical repentance flows from love to God; but the exercise of unfeigned love to him proceeds from the exercise of true faith. - 1 Tim. i. 5. Add to this, it is only by looking on Him whom we have pierced, that we can mourn after a godly sort, according to that remarkable promise: “They shall look on me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him.”–Zech xii. 10. There is, indeed, a conviction of the person’s guilt and misery, accompanied width a kind of sorrow for sin, and resolutions to forsake it, because it exposes him to everlasting punishment, which, in the nature of things, must precede the exercise of faith in Christ; but this is very different from evangelical repentance.

I maintain that regeneration precedes faith. That necessarily means that repentance must antecede regeneration. Repentance, I believe, comes after faith, but it cannot precede regeneration. That is because, as Robert Shaw states: “Evangelical repentance is a turning from sin to God; but there can be not turning to God, except through Christ; and no coming to Christ, but by believing [having faith] in him.” Faith then comes, as Shaw states, from God: “evangelical repentance flows from love to God.” In other words, “We love Him, because He FIRST loved us.” If God had never reached out to me, I would still be in sin.

 

[PEPCIS]

I suggest reading Catholic commentaries rather than Calvinist ones.

Well of course you do!!
una fides:

Here’s from Haydock’s commentary, which can be found online for free at haydock1859.tripod.com/

Yes, he takes an Arminianistic approach to Scriptures, as most Catholics (incredibly) do.

 

[una_fides]

Apostasy is exactly what you are describing when you say that someone falls from grace and must be restored by repentance and faith. What the Catholic Church teaches is the exact thing that Hebrews 6 speaks about. If the Catholic Church says that you can apostasize and then come back to grace, then the Catholic Church advocates putting Christ to an open shame.

I suppose now you’ll tell me that falling from grace is not apostacy?

I think you missed the Catholic interpretation of Hebrews 6 that I posted earlier on here from Haydock’s commentary. If you read that, hopefully it will clear up your confusion. The passage is not referring to confession of apostasy. Btw, how do you interpret Hebrews 6?

 

[mikeledes]

No, that’s an “I don’t know what God will do, but I do believe that the Judge of all the earth will do right.”

So if you don’t know, that means that you accept at least the possibility that God can save an infant that dies in infancy?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

You interpret the Bible to support your contentions, and dissallow any interpretation which draws from other Biblical passages that do not support your contentions. Sounds very subjective to me.

I’m not disallowing anything. I’ve had discussions with Calvinists and OSAS Arminians before and I’m familiar with those passages and the interpretation drawn from them. Those passages do not conclusively uphold the Calvinist view. And it’s not because I’m somehow unable to see it because of my Catholic perspective. Martin Luther was also familiar with those passages and believed that grave sin causes a loss of faith and salvation. Arminians also reject the view you uphold and they base it on Scripture. So it’s not like I’m rejecting your interpretation of those passages without giving any consideration to the arguments presented by Calvinists. You are free to make your case.

John 15:2,6 are not the whole of Scripture. They exist in conjuction with the parable of the sower, which clearly shows that there is no such thing as a believer who fails to produce fruit.

That is not as “clear” as you say it is. First of all, the second group are descibed as having “believed.” Secondly, the passage nowhere says that the second and third group were never justified. Thirdly, Lutherans and Classical Arminians use this passage to clearly demonstrate that salvation can be lost. So, at most, this passage can go either way and it’s not as clear as you thing. Now unlike the parable of the sower, John 15 clearly states the* spiritual state *of the subjects in John 15:2, 6 - they are in Me/ IN CHRIST. It is an undisputed biblical fact that anyone who is in Christ has been justified. And hence of the two passages, John 15 is the clearer one and should be the one that informs our understanding the parable of th sower.

A clear, objective, present-day example would be a church member who had never entrusted his life to Christ, but had followed all of the Church’s dictates regarding what are the “right” things to do to be a good Catholic. Then one day, that person would die and hear Christ’s terrible words, “depart from me you worker of evil.” This happens all the time, both in Protestant and Catholic congregations. For you to deny it is to deny reality

Did I deny this? I don’t recall doing so. First of all, if you read that passage from Matthew in context, Jesus is talking about false prophets - those who enter the church with the intent to deceive. Moreover, I never said there is no such thing as a false professor and that passage can also be applied to false professors. What I do deny is that everyone who falls away is a false professor, a person who never really believed. I believe Scripture teaches that among those who fall way you will find false professor and those who were once true believers. Moreover, a false professor can never be “severed from Christ” and “fall from grace” (Galatians 5:4) because they were never united to Christ or were in a state of grace to begin with.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Apostasy is exactly what you are describing when you say that someone falls from grace and must be restored by repentance and faith. What the Catholic Church teaches is the exact thing that Hebrews 6 speaks about. If the Catholic Church says that you can apostasize and then come back to grace, then the Catholic Church advocates putting Christ to an open shame.

I suppose now you’ll tell me that falling from grace is not apostacy?

First of all, the Church does not advocate to put Christ to shame because it does not advocate for anyone to sin.

Falling from grace is not always apostacy. That is what Luther taught, that every grave sin effects a loss of faith.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I maintain that regeneration precedes faith. That necessarily means that repentance must antecede regeneration. Repentance, I believe, comes after faith, but it cannot precede regeneration. That is because, as Robert Shaw states: “Evangelical repentance is a turning from sin to God; but there can be not turning to God, except through Christ; and no coming to Christ, but by believing [having faith] in him.” Faith then comes, as Shaw states, from God: “evangelical repentance flows from love to God.” In other words, “We love Him, because He FIRST loved us.” If God had never reached out to me, I would still be in sin.

I believe that grace precedes both faith and repentance because no one can come to Christ unless God inspires him to do so through the work of the Spirit. I believe and uphold the biblical and historic understanding of regeneration - which occurs in the sacrament of Baptism. That is taught in Scripture, unanimously upheld for 1, 500 years - and taught by Augustine and the Council of Orange, which Calvinists love to cite - until John Calvin came to his own conclusion regarding this issue. But this is another subject for another thread … the ordo salutis.

Now you believe that faith precedes repentance, and I also agree with that. See, we at least agree on something! We also know from Scripture that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned on repentance.

Luke 24:47

**47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to (AV)all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. **

Acts 3:19

**19"Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; **

Isaiah 55:7

7Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the LORD,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.

The problem is this. That the logical order or sequence of events is as follows:

Faith leads to repentance ends in justification

Which means that there are two requirements (faith and repentance) prior to justification, not one requirement (faith alone). If the faith alone model were correct, then this should be the logical order:

Faith leads to justification

This makes anything that is not faith itself but* related *to faith ancilliary to salvation (such as repentance) and thus there is no logical contradiction to sola fide. However, this is not the biblical case. Justification is conditioned on two things, not one (faith alone). It does not matter if someone who believes will repent. Faith and repentance are distinct concepts. The point is that one is not justified until one has repented, which logically follows faith. So one is not justified by faith alone. This also explains why Paul never says faith alone, though he had numerous opportunities to do so. If repentance is a necessary prerequisite for salvation, then the sole requirement for salvation is not faith.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I “belong” to Southern Baptist, but I am more truly a Reformed Baptist. There aren’t any Reformed Baptist churches in my area.

What’s the difference between a Southern Baptist and a Reformed Baptist?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

These groups have all similarly used Scripture to base their differences upon. Pentecostals have interpreted Scripture to include speaking in tongues and other gifts as being applicable for today’s Christian. Speaking of which, there are Catholics which practice the same. But, according to you, these might be excommunicated because they don’t follow Catholic tradition.

Actually, the Church has never forbidden speaking in tongues.

Who’s throwing mud??? I said that “Using tradition as a means of interpretation is dangerous because you can essentially make the Bible say whatever it is that you want it to say.” I then noted that the Catholic Church had used that system by engaging in the crusades, and the inquisitions. If you “throw mud” by mentioning the Salem witch trials, that doesn’t change a thing regarding the crusades or the inquistions. You just ignored what I said, which is that using tradition as a means for interpretation and guidance leads to error.

I believe the point that una fides was trying to make - please correct me, una fides, if I’m wrong - that Sola Scriptura is not inherently immune to dangerous tendencies like religious intolerance and violence. Martin Luther believed in Sola Scriptura and he encouraged violence against Jews. Calvinist Geneva believed in Sola Scriptura and that didn’t stop them from persecuting those who held different religious views. Protestant pastors in America used the Bible to justify slavery and racial segregation. So you don’t have to formally accept “tradition” in order to make the Bible say whatever you want. There is nothing inherent in Tradition that makes it more dangerous then Sola Scriptura. So I disagree with your argument that using tradition as a means for interpretation leads to error.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Yes, he takes an Arminianistic approach to Scriptures, as most Catholics (incredibly) do.

Actually, if you read its commentary on Romans 9, he has a very un-Arminianistic approach to Scripture. Not everyone who disagrees with Calvinists is Arminian. Augustine - who Calvinists often cite and event refer to their belief system as “Augustinianism” - would be labeled an Arminian if that were the case. Luther also disagreed with Calvinists on certain points in soteriology, but that doesn’t make him an Arminian.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Originally Posted by PEPCIS
On ALL the fundamental issues? Really? I guess we might differ on what is “fundamental” then.

On what fundamentals do all Protestants agree on?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

No, of course not. I’m talking about those doctrines which are not essential to salvation, but are necessary for proper worship and living out your faith.

Then how could the Church have gotten this fundamental issue wrong immediately following the death of the apostles until the protestant revolt?

How do you say that they “got it wrong” immediately?
una fides:

How could the Church be in a constant state of error for the majority of her history pertaining to this most fundamental aspect of salvation?

She migrated…

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Not quite. I’m satisfied that my interpretation is objective. Objectivity is, to me, the height of assurance. If you can show me where I have failed in my interpretation to be objective and true to the Scriptures, then I’d be glad to concede, AND to change my position to reflect the truth. That’s the beauty of the Protestant faith in its truest form - that you can change your mind according to the strength of the argument as it pertains to God’s Word.

I would say that’s a huge weakness not a strength to one day believe that one thing is true and then the next be convinced otherwise because you are presented with a more convincing argument from Scripture.

So, you claim that it is a weakness to acquiesce to reason and rational thought? Strange. So, what are we doing here?
una fides:

You can never really know if your interpretation is correct.

You, yourself, have already stated that you must always be prepared to accept that you could be wrong in your interpretation. Are you now changing your mind?
una fides:

You are constantly searching for the correct interpretation but will never be able to achieve it because the highest authority you can appeal to is your own private interpretation.

Sorta. You should be constantly searching, as the Bereans did, for the correct interpretation, and should be willing to listen to anything that is reasonably formatted as an argument. However, it is wrong to take a defeatist attitude that you can never know what truth is, because the highest authority you can appeal to is God’s Word which you interpret through your own mind. You want to refer to that as “private interpretation”, that’s OK by me.
una fides:

Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

Gotta keep things in context. We are told that we are not to be children IN OUR UNDERSTANDING. “walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, who have their understanding darkened, and are alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.”

Wonderfully, Paul tells us that we are DIFFERENT than these heathen, because “ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus.”

Our walk in the Lord should be exhibited by continual learning, constantly changing what it is that we understand as the truth, so that we may “. . . 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: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”

Coming to a unity in the faith, and being agreed on the information of who the Son of God is, is to strive “unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ”. We will never achieve that in this life, but we are to strive for that.

 

[PEPCIS]

I am with a Church now that I do not agree with. But I think that it is safe to say that you could not find a handful of Catholics that would agree with every official pronouncement from the Pontiff.

una fides:

Someone can claim to be “Catholic” and not really obey or believe the teachings of the Church. They are Catholic in name and Catholic by their baptism, but they are not actually a part of the Church but have separated themselves by there heresies and apostasies.

Sounds a bit contradictory to me. You claim that one can be a Christian AND be fruitless. Such a person would have “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.” Being ignorant and a faulty understanding of God and spiritual things automatically means that they are not going to be espousing correct Catholic doctrine.

So, according to you, you can be a Christian without fruit, understanding, and full of ignorance, being a part of the Catholic Church, but they would not be “actually a part of the Church but have separated themselves by their heresies and apostasies”, yet still be a Christian, just without fruit?

Here’s a wake-up call: there are probably a handful of REAL, honest-to-goodness Catholics in the US if we go by your definitions. Too many Catholics are liberal in their ideologies, embracing Free Choice for women, homosexuality, cohabitating, and the list goes on and on.
una fides:

I think one of the most appealing points to Catholicism is that I don’t have to try to figure out what the truth is . . . Instead, I follow the Church . . .

That’s the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant. A Protestant will not allow someone else to think for him.

Also, it should be noted that Catholics, if they insist on being Catholic, would have to treat me as a non-believer, because as Pope Boniface the VIII said, "outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins . . . "

 

[mikeledes]

Sounds a bit contradictory to me. You claim that one can be a Christian AND be fruitless. Such a person would have “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.” Being ignorant and a faulty understanding of God and spiritual things automatically means that they are not going to be espousing correct Catholic doctrine.

So, according to you, you can be a Christian without fruit, understanding, and full of ignorance, being a part of the Catholic Church, but they would not be “actually a part of the Church but have separated themselves by their heresies and apostasies”, yet still be a Christian, just without fruit?

Here’s a wake-up call: there are probably a handful of REAL, honest-to-goodness Catholics in the US if we go by your definitions. Too many Catholics are liberal in their ideologies, embracing Free Choice for women, homosexuality, cohabitating, and the list goes on and on.

You are creating a contradiction by going beyond what una fides meant. We’ve never claimed that everyone who says they are Christian are truly Christian. No one denies that there are false professors. What we don’t agree with is with the view that everyone that falls away is a false professor. A false professor can be a member of a congregation, bu they can never be in Christ. And since they never experienced justification, they can never be severed from Christ or fall from grace because they were never united to Christ and never were in a state of grace to begin with. And hence, those who fall away include false professors and former true believers.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Quent_Below]

Also, it should be noted that Catholics, if they insist on being Catholic, would have to treat me as a non-believer, because as Pope Boniface the VIII said, "outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins . . . "

Your understanding of that remark doesn’t sound correct. It’s a remark that likely means we believe Christ intended to found a church community to preserve the meaning of his teaching and carry on his work in the world. Including providing the ordinary means of salvation through grace (the sacramental life in the Catholic Church).

And that Christ had no intention of spawing the founding of thousands of Christian faith traditions. One wonders if some of his prayers were a grieving for the lack of unity he forsaw among Christian followers. In any event, one church was founded, and all those who attain salvation (yes, attain; there are conditions attached including belief and acceptance of the good news, and working out our salvation ) obtain it through the Church he founded. Notwithstanding a lack of ackowledgement of this relationship.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

As I said, adding tradition as a source for interpretation, is adding SUBJECTIVITY to the equation. Subjectivity leads to error.

Actually you earlier stated that if no Christians believed what you did then there would be a problem. You never answered the fact to my knowledge that before AD 1500 or so you could not find those supporting your sola fide claims at all.

I am finding that a favorite argument of Catholics is that there was no sola fide/sola scriptura prior to AD 1500 or so. Yet there were arguments made by Augustine which clearly points to sola scriptura.
una fides:

You cannot find Church fathers etc who held to this view as protestants now do.

I don’t need to. I have Jesus, who stated, “he who hears My word, and believes . . . has passed out of death into life.” (Jn. 5:24) Sola fide, based upon sola scriptura.

Many times, when Jesus healed (Matt. 9:22; Mk. 5:34; 10:52; Lk. 8:48; 17:19; 18:42), He would also state: “Your faith has made you well.” Sola fide.

Luke 18:9-14 is “Justification by faith”. A beautiful example which Christ gave to show that one man “worked” by his ostentatious displays of righteousness, and another relied solely upon God’s righteousness to cleanse him. “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!”
una fides:

If anyone is going to know what Peter taught, it would be those whom he instructed orally.

You mean like: “Similarly we also, who by His will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, nor by such deeds as we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning of time. Glory be to Him, forever and ever, Amen.” - St. Clement of Rome (Letter to the Corinthians)

“Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ.” - St. Basil the Great (Homily on Humility)

“They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed.” - St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Galatians 3)

 

[PEPCIS]

So, if I understand this correctly, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to repeatedly put Christ to an open shame? (Hebrews 6)

mikeledes:

That passage specifically refers to the grievous sin of apostasy.

una fides:

The passage is not referring to confession of apostasy.

When you two figure it out, tell me which one of you is not the TRUE Catholic?

 

[PEPCIS]

So if you don’t know, that means that you accept at least the possibility that God can save an infant that dies in infancy?

With God, all things are possible. I continue to rest in His righteousness.

 

[mikeledes]

With God, all things are possible. I continue to rest in His righteousness.

So it is possible for an infant - who is unable to have explicit knowledge of Christ - to be saved.

God Bless,
Michael