How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[PEPCIS]

Do baptists teach that when we [are] told to love our neighbor, that the act is in itself inefficacious to salvation?

Yes. Love, on our part, is not required. We are COMMANDED to love our neighbor, but this is a requirement of believers, not how to become one. Love is essential to knowing God, but it is HIS love which saved us. “We love Him BECAUSE He first loved us.” If not for His first moving toward us, we would still be in our sins.

“God commended His love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

 

[PEPCIS]

This post is to sum up (for my closure) the ongoing debate between Pepcis and the Catholics here on the forum.

1. this is what we get when someone(Pepcis) lacks an infallible interpreter of God’s Holy word, an endless string of superficial and petty arguments, mixed in with a few cheap shots here and there about questionable history. Dude you obviously are a big fan of James White, oh wait, he’s a member of the reformed baptist church and you are southern baptist. The best advice for non Catholics is humility is the ONLY answer for pride.
2. while we waste time debating, guys like Richard Dawkins, and Chris Hitchens are leading a lot of peopleb into confusion, and possibly worse HELL. So it’s time Protestants unite rather than keep dividing!
3. Pepcis says evil events happen, e.g. Inquisition because of sacred tradition???eek!
   I could make the argument that evil things happen because the false doctrine of “faith alone,” because it gives people justification to do whatever they want whenever they want.
4. Finally Pepcis, in the words of the all so great and wise Hank “the Bible answer man,” Hanegraff…“the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things”(probably the most famous cop out of Christian apologetics). God made ONE Church dude, not 2,3,4,5,6,7, etc…1!

Hi Mgull. Good to hear from you. I understand the frustration that Catholics have with my position. But, just to correct you, please understand that I am not here to bash Catholics. I am merely engaging Catholics in doctrinal debate. Also, I am not trying to make the argument that the Catholic Church went into the inquisitions and crusades based upon false doctrine. Those things happened because of failure to adhere to doctrine.

I believe that not everything associated with the crusades or the inquisitions were wrong or evil.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Do baptists teach that when we told to love our neighbor, that the act is in itself inefficacious to salvation?

Yes. Love, on our part, is not required.

Are we able to love if we do not have Christ’s grace, His power in us?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes. Love, on our part, is not required. We are COMMANDED to love our neighbor, but this is a requirement of believers, not how to become one. Love is essential to knowing God, but it is HIS love which saved us. “We love Him BECAUSE He first loved us.” If not for His first moving toward us, we would still be in our sins.

“God commended His love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

Mat 24: 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
This passage is problematic to your theology. Here it says the love of many Christians will “grow cold” due to sin and not persevere and be saved.

 

[soflochristmas]

This post is to sum up (for my closure) the ongoing debate between Pepcis and the Catholics here on the forum.

1. this is what we get when someone(Pepcis) lacks an infallible interpreter of God’s Holy word, an endless string of superficial and petty arguments, mixed in with a few cheap shots here and there about questionable history. Dude you obviously are a big fan of James White, oh wait, he’s a member of the reformed baptist church and you are southern baptist. The best advice for non Catholics is humility is the ONLY answer for pride.
2. while we waste time debating, guys like Richard Dawkins, and Chris Hitchens are leading a lot of peopleb into confusion, and possibly worse HELL. So it’s time Protestants unite rather than keep dividing!
3. Pepcis says evil events happen, e.g. Inquisition because of sacred tradition???eek!
   I could make the argument that evil things happen because the false doctrine of “faith alone,” because it gives people justification to do whatever they want whenever they want.
4. Finally Pepcis, in the words of the all so great and wise Hank “the Bible answer man,” Hanegraff…“the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things”(probably the most famous cop out of Christian apologetics). God made ONE Church dude, not 2,3,4,5,6,7, etc…1!

That about sums it up. Thanks for the concise readers digest version of this thread…which really should be titled "How do protestants answer to John 3:16.

 

[una_fides]

Thanks. I’ve learned that if I really want to learn, I must be always prepared to admit when I am wrong.

I believe that the Holy Spirit guides me in my Bible study, because I earnestly try to remain open to His leading. I have yet to be mislead by the Holy Spirit.

The problem arises when we think that our conclusions are that of the Holy Spirit or that they are brought about by his guidance rather than our own pride or predispositions in interpretation. That’s why we defer to the higher authority in these matters. Christ didn’t just found a Church, give her a book, and tell each person to read it and figure out everything about him. No, he founded a Church, and the Church he founded compiled the books of Scripture as part of the teachings of Christ. Scripture never claims to be solely sufficient–only profitable.

I don’t KNOW that every single point of Scripture has been correctly interpreted by me. But I leave myself open to try to see whever I am wrong. That is the nature of Biblical interpretation - you must always be searching for the truth that God would have you to learn.

Again, this way is not the way Christ established, and in the early Church, that’s not how converts were made. There was no Bible in the early Church. Christ’s Church was run on his teaching Tradition that he handed to them. You are absolutely right that we must always be open to what God would have us to learn, but he has already established all the fundamentals through his Church. These matters were settled long ago by those much more qualified than you and I to discern them. Those people were the ones guided by the Holy Spirit. They were the ones placed in authority over the Church. What you or I interpret into Scripture 2000 years later is irrelevant, and if it disagrees with them on these foundational matters, then either we are interpreting it incorrectly, or you would have to conclude that Christ established a false Church teaching lies for 2000 years.

In this particular case, I simply blurted out that I had always taken the water to refer to human birth. I had never studied it. But after you challenged me on my interpretation, I decided to study it and see what it might be. There are some doctrines that we hold as “hills to die for.” Things like the resurrection, and the atoning work of Jesus’ blood. But I had never searched out the meaning in that passage, so I had no “hill” with which to defend my position.

What did you read when you “studied” this passage? Please cite all the sources. I’m curious.

I understand what you are saying, but the manner in which Baptists develop their doctrinal stands on the fundamentals, and the way that the Jehovah’s Witnesses develop theirs, is totally different. The JW’s develop their positions by CHANGING the Word of God, literally, and then interpreting the changed Word of God (which really is no longer the Word of God). Baptists/protestants develop their understandings by adhering to established patterns of interpretation.

JW’s would not agree with your assessment of their biblical interpretation any more than you would if someone accused baptists of doing the same. From my perspective, Baptists–along with the rest of protestant groups–establish their “patterns of interpretation” based on their already existing beliefs. And FYI, Baptists quite frequently disregard their own “established patterns of interpretation”–which they themselves made up–whenever Scripture seems to be saying otherwise. In such cases, they write them off to be “figurative” but then when it suits them, they will be the first to read a literal account into Genesis as well as interpret prophecy in the book of Revelation literally such as the 1000 year reign of Christ, etc.

If that were the case, then you would never have understood that Jesus was fully man, and fully God. That only came about in the year 451 in the Council of Chalcedon. Other Councils that followed in the centuries up to today, continually have FURTHER developed Church doctrine.

Actually, that is heresy. The Church always believed that Christ was fully man and fully God. It was not until this dogma came under attack that the Church clarified the matter at that Council. Baptists love to cite Councils as the creation points for dogmas, but in reality, the Church settles these issues by pointing back to the Tradition of what she has always believed. The Eucharist is a prime example. In the early Church, they interpreted Christ literally when he said “This IS my body” and “my flesh is really food, and my blood is really drink.” Baptists, who claim to interpret Scripture literally, jump to interpret these passages figuratively because they do not agree with their pre-existing interpretations.

 

[una_fides]

I’ve said this in other threads: free will is an illusion. We do have a will, and it is “free” in the confines of its existence. But the Bible is quite clear that our wills our either bound to Satan, or they are bound to Christ. Either way, they are not “free.”

Our wills are “bound” in the sense that we should do Christ’s will if we are his and that we do the will of Satan if we are his. Nevertheless, we maintain the freedom to choose whose will to obey. We can choose to reject the gift that we have already received. It’s just like throwing away a gift after someone has given it to you.

I’m not interested in trying to belittle your experiences, but I would sincerely disagree with you. My experiences were similar, but they have a different conclusion.

I’m sorry that you disagree that I was saved when I believed as a youth with my whole heart sincerely, produced the fruit of good works, and loved God with all my heart. By your criteria, I would have been saved. But again, I completely fell away from the faith. Your conclusion would be that I never really had faith to begin with, but my own knowledge and experience contradicts your conclusion. You are ignoring mans free will. It is not an allusion. Man is most certainly guided by grace, and God’s grace precedes every good work of ours. However, man still always retains free will to reject God’s grace at any time. Calvinists believe in irresistible grace. It is on that one point that all Catholics disagree.

Well, I tend to side with the Catholic Church when it comes to the views of Pelagius and Arminius. Apparently, you have a different perspective?

I side with the Church’s condemnations of Pelagianism and Arminianism as well. If you can show me where anything I said clearly falls under either of those categories along with the specific condemnation by the Church, then I would be appreciative. I also side with the Church on the condemnation of Calvinisim and her heterodox invention of the dogma of irresistable grace.

Well, there are differing views on this subject within the Catholic Church too.

Such as?

 

[una_fides]

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.

Actually you’re off. I follow the correct interpretation of the whole of Scripture, which I base–not merely on my own personal opinion–but on the universal understanding of the Church for her early existence (aka apostolic Tradition) and I also base my understanding on the Magisterium of the Church, without which I would not even believe the gospel as I would be lacking a solid foundation.

 

[una_fides]

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.

I’m curious how much of Augustine’s works have you read? I occasionally will hear of protestants trying to cite this doctor of the Church in their defense, but when they do, it becomes apparent that they have missed the correct understanding of his writings entirely.
Please read these quotes on the following site: home.inreach.com/bstanley/august.htm
Here are a few you may want to especially consider:
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D. ****

****“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary Councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church.”
Letter to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D. ****

****“I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves.”
Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D. ****

****“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they would not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.”
The True Religion, 7,12, 397 A.D. ****

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.

Jesus also said to those to whom he gave apostolic authority over the Church: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

 

[una_fides]

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.

Did Christ say “your faith alone has made you well”? Where did you get that sola from? Furthermore, it is absolutely true and Catholics completely agree that you cannot merit first grace. When one is saved by faith through baptism, he has not merited anything but has received freely the gift of Christ by grace through faith. He has not yet done any justifying works and his faith has made him well in Christ. However, this faith is not his faith as if he himself brought it about. That faith is the faith of Christ brought about by grace.

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!”

He prayed a prayer of repentance, which the Catholic Church still continues to teach people to pray today. He made an act of contrition to be justified. Not sola fide, but fide et contritio (contrition) in this case.

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)

He is referring to initial justification. Elsewhere in St. Clement’s writings he clearly explains the necessity of good works for justification, just as St. James clearly states that a man is justified by works and not by sola fide.

“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)

You take the father’s out of context just like you do the Scriptures.

St. John Chrysostom:
"He that believes in the Son has everlasting life [John 3:36]… "Is it ENOUGH, then, to BELIEVE in the Son," someone will say, “in order to have everlasting life?” BY NO MEANS! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” [Matt 7:21]; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a PART of our teaching? For if a man BELIEVE rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not LIVE RIGHTLY, his faith will avail him NOTHING TOWARD SALVATION. (Homilies on John 31:1)

“If salvation is BY GRACE [Rom 11:6],” someone will say, “why is it we are not all saved?” BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WILL IT; for grace, even though it be grace, saves the WILLING, not those who are NOT willing and who TURN AWAY from it and who constantly fight against it and OPPOSE themselves to it. (Homilies on Romans 18:5)

for not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. (Homily on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 277)

(Galatians 5) Verse 6 “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; *** but faith working through love.” What is the meaning of “working through love?”*** Here he gives them a hard blow, by showing that this error had crept in because the love of Christ had not been rooted within them. For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians 5, NPNF1: Volume 13, page 37)

 

[una_fides]

Then how could the Church have gotten this fundamental issue wrong immediately following the death of the apostles until the protestant revolt? 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?
PEPCIS;5331997:

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

Because the early Church clearly taught that you were justified by baptism, the sacrament of faith and that faith and works were necessary for salvation, not sola fide. Who do you read of in the early Church condemning the teachings of regeneration through the sacrament of baptism? This heresy did not sprout up until much later.

She migrated…

I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. Are you trying to say that the “true church” somehow became the invisible false church that we do not see arriving into history until the 1500s?

 

[una_fides]

In the end, it doesn’t really matter what either of us believe. All that matters is [what] God’s Word states

Good luck as you try to interpret God’s word, and let me know when you’ve come to an authoritative conclusion.

False professors are united to the Body of Christ. They are unable to produce any fruit, and Jesus says that He will cut those unfruitful branches away (sever them from Christ) and throw them into the fire to be burned.

So you’re saying that according to your theology one can be united to the Body of Christ and never have true faith in him?

 

[una_fides]

Una fides clearly says that passage is not referring to the confession

of the sin of apostasy. He is not saying that it does not refer to the sin of apostasy.

God Bless,
Michael
PEPCIS;5335418:

LOL Sorry, but that’s a load of … semantics.

No semantics. He’s stating the facts. I did not say whether the passage was referring to the sin of apostasy or not. mikeledes rightly placed emphasis on what I was communicating in that the passage is not referring to confessing of this sin but was referring to the impossibility of gaining remission of sins again through a second baptism. Whether or not the author of the text was referring to apostacy by the words “fall away” honestly doesn’t make much of a difference to me. I never said I don’t believe that it’s referring to apostacy. I was responding to the part about being “renewed again unto repentance” not referring to the confession of this sin (of apostacy). Nice try though. Honestly, something to consider. If you honestly took our statements to be contradictory and completely misconstued them, how confident can you really be that you haven’t done the same concerning the intended meaning of the passages of Scripture?

Wouldn’t it help to have the apostles here to talk with and explain things? Well we don’t have them here, but we do have the writings of the leaders they appointed to take their place and who they themselves instructed in the faith. How did the fathers intepret these Scriptures?

Btw, could you please provide your own interpretation of this same passage in question in Hebrews 6? When I was protestant, I never heard a convincing explanation of this passage from their perspectives. They seemed to make the passage virtually meaningless.

 

[una_fides]

There doesn’t need to be an open advocacy to sin. There just needs to be a promotion of the availability of falling from grace and returning to salvation - which is what the Church DOES advocate.
…
Hebrews 6 DOES NOT speak of what you refer to as Lutherian doctrine. Hebrews 6 clearly talks about apostasy. And besides, we aren’t talking about what Luther believed, but what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that if you fall from grace that you are no longer in a saving relationship to the Father and Son, and that you are in need of absolution and forgiveness. This requires a work of penance on the part of the one who has fallen from grace.

Here you are way off. A person is absolved before he performs the work of penance, which is given to make amends for the temporal harm the person has done. The absolution is contingent on faith and true contrition and is brought about solely by grace. The Catholic Church does not teach that one can work in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins through confession nor is the confession of sins a work any more than “calling upon the name of the Lord” or making “a prayer of faith” is a work. These are cooperations with grace. The sinner cooperates with grace, which leads him to confess his sins and thus receive sanctifying grace in the sacrament of confession. Sacraments are not “good works.” They are the outward signs instituted by Christ to give us grace.

 

[una_fides]

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

. You cannot find Church fathers etc who held to this view as protestants now do. They did believe, as Catholics do, that you are saved soley by a formed and living faith, which is working by charity. They also believed that you could fall from grace.
PEPCIS;5332855:

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.

First, It is quite clear that the early Church did not teach sola fide. If you think it did, please read these debunks of your couple quotes you earlier cited that were taken out of context:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/page5.html
matt1618.freeyellow.com/fathers.html
bringyou.to/apologetics/a98.htm

Second, do you have an answer to the fact that your earlier position was that if no Christians held to the same view as you did then there would be a problem with your understanding of Christ’s teaching. It appears that your current interpretation would have been alone in the early days of the Church. You would not find those teaching what you now believe. How do you answer this obvious problem and contradiction? Do you remain consistant and say that then you should call your current biblical understandings into question and that they should be found to conform with all the Christians of earlier times?

Again if you were raised in the Christian Church in AD 300, 500, or 1000 what would you believe about faith and salvation? What would all those who had true faith in Christ be teaching as received from the apostles? The answer to that question is of crucial importance not only pertaining to what they taught about faith, works, and salvation, but what they universally understood regarding apostolic succession and apostolic authority. The one true Church of Christ has always from the beginning claimed to be the “pillar and foundation of truth” that Scripture affirms her to be.

Sola fide [is] based upon sola scriptura.

Sola Scriptural does not in any way necessitate or lead to the conclusion of sola fide. There are many who follow sola Scriptura but who do not hold to sola fide. They have Scriptures that are just as clear to them as they are to you in support of their ideas. You just have not found them as convincing… at least not yet. There is always hope.

 

[PEPCIS]

Are we able to love if we do not have Christ’s grace, His power in us?

All humans can (and do) love, yes. But, we are not able to gain the proper perspective until we have been regenerated by God’s grace through Christ. We love our neighbors, but only from a worldly perspective. Once we have been regenerated, then we gain a new perspective on why and how we can love our neighbors.

 

[MarcoPolo]

All humans can (and do) love, yes. But, we are not able to gain the proper perspective until we have been regenerated by God’s grace through Christ. We love our neighbors, but only from a worldly perspective. Once we have been regenerated, then we gain a new perspective on why and how we can love our neighbors.

Let me rephrase slightly: do we need God’s grace to love in accord with His command to love neighbor.

I do not follow your answer, you say that our “perspective” changes once we have God’s grace. What does that mean? Were we fulfilling the command to love neighbor before regeneration or only after we loved with the power of His grace?

 

[mikeledes]

LOL Sorry, but that’s a load of … semantics.

Does una fides deny that Hebrews 6 is about apostasy? He specifically said that it is not about the confession of apostasy. One thing is to confess a sin, another thing is to commit a sin.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Catholics are, by definition, Arminian. They clearly associate closely on interpretation.

Let me address this first. If this is so, then your definition of Arminian is wrong. First of all, Catholicism pre-existed Arminianism. Arminianism split from Calvinism. Secondly, Catholicism’s understanding of predestination and efficacious grace is not the same as the Arminian understanding. The fact that we have similarities does not make us Arminian. Arminianism is not the only alternative to Calvinism. Martin Luther and confessional Lutherans, for example, believe in unconditional election and that salvation can be lost and yet they are not considered classical Arminians. If you are going to compare us with Protestants, then the Catholic view of predestination is closer to the Lutheran view than the Arminian one.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

And those passages do not conclusively uphold the Catholic view. Conclusiveness is in objectivity, which you and una fides have already admitted you don’t own, because you insist that a subjective interpretation (Scripture PLUS tradition) is acceptable.
Very well. That is a statement that we BOTH should apply to each other. We don’t necessarily not see what it is that each other is saying, but we don’t accept it.

I didn’t say they conclusively prove anything. I do believe that the Catholic view reconciles those seemingly contradictory passages in a way Calvinists and classical Arminians can’t. However, your claim that Catholics are by definition Arminian indicates to me that you do not have a proper understanding of the Catholic view.

God Bless,
Michael