How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[mikeledes]

Actually, in this post you claimed that each group represented believers.

If you read that post carefully, I said that only the last THREE groups refer to believers.

But, it’s clear that the first group (the seed that falls by the wayside and is trampled and eaten by birds) NEVER even produces roots. The seed itself is God’s Word, and does not represent a believer (Mark 8:14 - “The sower soweth the word [seed].”) You are exchanging “believer” for “God’s Word.”

Again, I said that group never believed.

In the second group (the seed that falls on rocky soil) shows God’s Word being implanted into a person where the seed actually takes root. This shows a person who actually engages his mind to consider the gospel message (which is the roots growing), but then he pays no more attention to it (no watering of the seed), and it quickly withers away. Again, this illustrates someone who never came to believe.

According to you, they never believed. According to Christ, they believed for a while. Since you believe that if a person ceases to believe that they never believed, you read “never believed” into that passage. This is based on an assumption that one cannot lose genuine faith, an assumption that has yet to be proven. For now, I’ll accept what Jesus said - that at one point they believed.

In the third group (the seed that falls among the thorns and heavy weeds), we see God’s Word being implanted into a person where the seed actually takes root. This shows a person who actually engages his mind to consider the gospel message (which is the roots growing, and the plant beginning to take shape), but it quickly gets choked out by the cares of the world. This shows a person who has made a choice between the gospel and the world, and the world was considered more important. Once again, this illustrates someone who never came to believe.

It doesn’t say they never believed.

Finally, in the last group (the seed that actually finds its way into good solid dirt), we see God’s Word being implanted into a person where the seed takes root, the seedling begins to grow, and the plant thrives and produces 100 times itself. This is the only seed which can be represented as a believer, because it shows God’s Word resulting in works which produce fruit.

It shows one believer that has persevered.

Out of all the groups, only one exhibits a believer

.

According to your assumption of what constitutes a true believer.

More importantly, it nowhere states that they were justified. That’s clear because only those who are justified remain “in Christ.”

I never says they were justifed and it never says they weren’t. But we know unequivocally from the Bible that those who are justified are in Christ. If you remain in Christ, then you remain justified. If you never were in Christ, you can never BY DEFINITION remain in something you were never a part of.

Actually, John clearly and absolutely states that only those who ARE “in Christ” are saved. In an parallel passage to the parable of the sower, we see Christ speaking of those same individuals who have heard the Word of God (received the seed from the sower) as attempting to hang on to the tree. But then Jesus says only those who abide in Him (in other words, only those who have seed planted in good soil) are going to be fruitful. “He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.” That is a believer.

He then goes on in the next verse to state that all of those individuals who had seed implanted but never produced any fruit will be hacked away from the tree and be burned. “If 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.” That is a non-believer

You are combining two very distinct parables. Jesus is very clear regarding the “location” of these branches:

**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. **

He doesn’t simply any branch that does not bear fruit, He says every branch in Me. In other words, the person is clearly identified by Christ as being in Him. There is not a single example in Scrpture where “in Christ” is ever used as a reference to mere membership in a congregation. It’s always used as a person who is justified. And since Christ clearly identified this branch as being in Him, this is the clearer one of the two passages. The Vine is Christ and thus anyone who is in Christ is united to Him and becomes a branch. A false professor can united himself to a congregation, but He can never be united to Christ as a branch is united to a vine. A branch is an integral and real part of a vine.

John 15:6 reminds me of Galatians 5:4, since they are severed from Christ and have fallen from grace.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Yes, I believe you have. You want one passage to be used to support your contention that a believer can fall away from the faith and lose their salvation. On the other hand, you want that same passage to embrace the concept that this person could be a false convert/professor. You can’t have it both ways. Either the passage is regarding one or the other, but not both.

The passage that you keep referring to from Matthew is clearly about false prophets, as the context establishes. The most that this passages establishes is that there are false professors. That passage in Matthew is not among the passages I use to support the teaching that a true believer can fall away because that passage is not about a true believer falling away. So I am not having both ways.

Jesus is clearly talking about false converts in this passage we are considering (Matt.7). What we are trying to establish is whether or not there is such a thing as a believer who can fall away from salvation. This passage clearly shows that a person who fails to produce fruit that is “meet for repentance” and exhibits true saving faith, is clearly not saved (“By their fruits you shall know them”).

That’s right. A false prophet will be known by his fruits - false teaching, etc. But a true believer can cease to bear good fruit:

Ezekiel 18:24

**24"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. **

You wanted to say that John 15 is talking about true believers who can fall away from salvation. You said: “Yes, Jesus says that any tree that does not bear fruit will be cut down and thrown in the fire and, according to John15:2,6. that includes true believers.”

According to Christ those branches are in Him and anyone who is in Christ is a true believer.

Yet the remarkable similarities of this narration from Jesus, and His parable of the Sower is striking, and shows clearly that there are many people who hear the Word, but are prevented from becoming believers. Jesus says that presenting the Word to people “in parables [is done so] that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” (Mark 4)

And He did that because if everyone converted, who would kill Him and thus accomplish God’s plan of salvation?

That one statement is confirmation of my position that just because you have the Word sown in your heart does not assure of salvation. Jesus clearly states that “the Word that was sown in their hearts” was IMMEDIATELY taken away by the Devil (Mark 4:15). There was no possibility

Obviously - as I stated - these never believed. But the next group “believed.”

Actually, I stated that “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.” To which you insisted that John 15:2,6 speaks about believers who fail to produce fruit, because it says “abide in me.” Yet Jesus states that anyone who is not abiding in Him would be cast off the tree.

It says no such thing. You cannot abide - stay, remain, continue - in something that you were never a part of. The Greek word “meno” is never used that way in Scripture.

The real point is that an appeal to “false professors” is not needed, because it is clear that regardless of which one we are speaking of, they are both exhibiting the same exact fruit. Which means they are both on the same pathway.

Both false professors and true believers that fall away willhave the same end.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter what either of us believe. All that matters is that God’s Word states that there is no such thing as a believer who does not produce fruit. False professors do not produce fruit, and non-believers cannot produce fruit. Believers CANNOT produce no fruit.

According to Scripture, they can turn away and cease to abide in Christ.

Your appeal to false professors is a red herring. And there are no such thing as “true believers” who produce no fruit. They are “false professors.”

Red herring? There are false professors and there are true believers that fall away. No false professor can be described as being “in Christ”, Pepcis.

That’s a mistake. 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

They are united to a congregation, not to Christ. Can you cite one example in Scripture where “in Christ” is used to refer to a person who is not a believer?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

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.

No offense, but this is bordering on the ridiculous. The Church specifically teaches not to sin and not to presume that you will have an opportunity to repent. I don’t go out of my way to sin because I know that I will have access to forgiveness later. If we’re going down this road, do Calvinists commit sins like murder and adultery because they know they will not lose their salvation?

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

I meant Lutherans turn to that passage to support their doctrine, not that it refers to Lutheran doctrine. They just happen to be right on this point. You are the one who claimed that Luther abandoned the “works based” salvation of the Catholic Church and yet he believed in baptismal regeneration and confession and absolution. I state this because I don’t know how you can claim Luther did not teach “works salvation” and then claim that Catholics do because we believe in confession and absolution? I reaffirm what I stated earlier - God uses means to bestow His grace. Through the work of preaching, God bestows the gift of faith to the hearer. Through the hands of Paul, God bestows His gift to Timothy. We believe that through the sacrament of Confession, God bestows the gift of forgiveness and this forgiveness is subjevtively appropriated through faith and repentance. That which God bestows using a means does not cease to be gift because He used that means and someone turned to those means to receive the gift.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

I do not believe that “man has the ability to radically separate himself from God” because that would be contrary to what God promises in His Word.

To clarify, to say that man can fall from grace would be contrary to how you interpret

God’s Word. There are many protestants who interpret God’s Word and his promises quite differently on this matter. Christ promises that “he who endures to the end shall be saved.”

The issue is NOT how I interpret God’s Word compared to “many protestants who interpret God’s Word. . . quite differently” but how I interpret God’s Word differently than an Arminianist (such as what you teach.)
una fides:

Here is just a taste of what the early Church fathers have to say on this subject:

Commentary on Mat 7:21-23 from Catena Aurea:

St. John Chrysostom.: But there are that say that they spoke this falsely, and therefore were not saved. But they would not have dared to say this to the Judge in His presence. But the very answer and question prove that it was in His presence that they spoke thus. For having been here wondered at by all for the miracles which they wrought, and there seeing themselves punished, they say in wonderment, “Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?” Others again say, that they did sinful deeds not while they thus were working miracles, but at a time later. But if this be so, that very thing which the Lord desired to prove would not be established, namely, that neither faith nor miracles avail ought where there is not a good life; as Paul also declares, “If I have faith that I may remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing.” [1Co_13:2] … For all are not alike fit for all things; these are of pure life, but have not so great faith; those again have the reverse. Therefore God converted these by the means of those to the shewing forth much faith; and those that had faith He called by this unspeakable gift of miracles to a better life; and to that end gave them this grace in great richness. And they say, “We have done many mighty works.” But because they were ungrateful towards those who thus honoured them, it follows rightly, “Then will I confess unto you, I never knew you.”

I read this here, and then I went online to read a more complete context of his statements, and the text that I found there did not match the text that you have here. Why is that?

The text at this web site (Christian Classics) doesn’t seem to contain any of that text. Is this the same book that Chrysostom wrote? Or are they two different? If so, he sure isn’t saying the same thing here as what you pasted into your post.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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

I don’t want to keep bumping my other posts. But at any rate…
*
1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.*

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

It is “worse” than that. He doesn’t have a choice in his acceptation of salvation. It is like a man in the middle of the ocean. He has no means to get himself out of the water. He is COMPLETELY at the mercy of anyone who happens by. He cannot will someone to save him. If someone happens by, the man cannot force the stranger to help him. He is at his mercy. Either the man will save him, or he won’t.

If someone is drowning in the ocean, and another reaches out to save him, he still retains the free will to choose to not be saved or after making into the boat, he can choose to abandon ship.

You’re completely changing the analogy. The analogy is someone who is in a TOTALLY helpless position. Of course, after being saved, he could choose to abandon the ship and committ suicide, but that is not a helpless position, because at that time he is able to move about between safety and destruction.

If someone is in the middle of the sea, that is more closely resembling a man who is without any hope in the world, and is full of sin and heading toward certain destruction. The man could simply succumb to the waves of the ocean, but if no one comes by, he could NEVER hope to be saved.

You say that if a man happens to reach out to him that he could still “choose to not be saved”, but that is beside the point: a man in need of salvation doesn’t dive into destruction. Indeed, the man who is unsaved DOESN’T EVEN KNOW THAT HE IS UNSAVED.
una fides:

I’m not coming from an Armenian POV. It’s distinctly Catholic. You are creating a false dichotomy that one must either be Calvinist or Armenian.

There is only one dichotomy and that is between Calvinism and Arminianism (not Armenian, which is people from the country of Armenia ).
una fides:

From the Council of Trent . . .

It’s unfortunate, but the Council of Trent merely solidified Arminius’ teachings - not because they were correct, but because they were not “Protestant.”

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

If someone falls out of grace (according to Catholic dogma), then he is NOT IN CHRIST, therefore, he would be performing works OUTSIDE OF CHRIST. That is works-based, and has nothing to do with faith. If that person fell out of faith/grace, then he is simply a seed that was never planted in good soil, and is therefore a false professor.

To be a “false professor” one must have the will to do so. One cannot sincerely believe with all his heart in Christ and in his teachings, then fall away, and all that time have been a “false professor” for his profession was most sincere by God’s grace.

That’s like saying that a leapord can change its diet, or can stop wearing spots. It’s impossible. A leapord MUST eat what it eats, and it MUST wear its spots. It cannot change what it is, anymore than a Christian could completely stop being a Christian.
una fides:

Also, performing good works in Christ, has everything to do with faith. A person in a state of grace must have a living faith, a faith working through charity. Without such a faith, a person is not in Christ.

I never said that they were.
una fides:

Those who produce fruit as a part of the vine can also later whither and be cast off, as has been pointed out earlier on this thread as attested to by the words of Christ.

There is no place in Scripture where a branch produced fruit and then didn’t produce fruit. The Scripture clearly states that any branch that does not produce fruit will be cut off. It doesn’t say “any branch that stops producing fruit.”
una fides:

Let us remember also the fig tree. . .

That parable speaks of Israel and her apostasy. Totally different.

 

[mikeledes]

There is only one dichotomy and that is between Calvinism and Arminianism (not Armenian, which is people from the country of Armenia ).

It’s unfortunate, but the Council of Trent merely solidified Arminius’ teachings - not because they were correct, but because they were not “Protestant.”

There is more than just Calvinism and Arminianism out there. Arminius came after the Council of Trent.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

There is no place in Scripture where a branch produced fruit and then didn’t produce fruit. The Scripture clearly states that any branch that does not produce fruit will be cut off. It doesn’t say “any branch that stops producing fruit.”

The passage says that they do not remain in Christ, which means that at one time they were in Christ.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mgull]

Post #275

But it is not the same as what you are referring to as “tradition” in the Catholic Church, or in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whenever you come to tradition which is based upon extra-Biblical foundations, then you are talking about the tradition which Protestants reject.

Post #275

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

Post #321

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 of failure to adhere to doctrine.

1. Read the first quote. Then, read the first three lines of the second quote. It’s obvious your understanding of Church teachings are ALL over the place. Please make your mind up Pepcis, do we COME to tradition from interpretation, or do we USE tradition to interpret?
2. The third quote makes absolutely no sense because you said “I am not trying to make the argument that the Catholic Church went into the inquisitions and crusades based upon false doctrine.”, but in the second and third lines of the second quote that is clearly what you said!

You dance as good as Michael Jackson brother. What’s that word you love so much? Is it…semantics? You my friend are a seasoned rhetorician!!! Were you Obama’s campaign manager?

I guess you can still figure out a way to make the Church look infallibe, but most peple don’t buy it.(this is from post #275)

This is YOUR fallible opinion, and because of the fact that it is your opinion then you can’t just facile make a comment like this.

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 fide.(this is from post #296)

I’m a sucker for ol’ St. Augustine. Where can I find the arguments that support this. If you use *The Confessions of St. Augustine *or The City of God, then I just need the book and chapter number. Any other source will you cite in detail please. As far as the other quotes of Church Fathers you used in that post where did you get them from? And why did John Henry Newman say, “To learn Church history is to cease to be protestant?”

Another thing, did you ever answer the question of the difference in a “southern” baptist and a “reformed” baptist? Let me guess, southern baptist’s interpretation goes SOUTH so it has to be REFORMED. This is my poor attempt at a joke, I couldn’t help myself.

Lastly, I live in Louisville, KY, where the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is. I met a guy at a men’s retreat at a Catholic Church here that is attending the SBTS, and he is converting to the Catholic Church. Praise be to the Grace of God, he said yes to Christ. When we were praying the rosary on our knees he was participating, this is the power of our Mother’s prayers brother. Funny thing is, when the ArchBishop was talking he’s the ONLY who asked a question during his talk, that kid was in search for Jesus, and he found Him.

 

[PEPCIS]

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?

Only after we loved with the power of His grace. I would say that it is impossible for man to fulfill the command to love thy neighbor before we are regenerated.

 

[PEPCIS]

I don’t want to keep bumping my other posts. But at any rate…
*
1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing*. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I guess I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Did I say something contrary to what you are saying?

 

[PEPCIS]

From this post I can only surmise that much of our differences on Faith is due to definition; it is Faith vs. Faith–rather than substance, the argument seems to be that of vocabulary.

Maran atha!

Angel

I’m not so sure. From the debate, it would seem that it is much more than a matter of simple vocabulary. If it were simply “vocabulary”, then we wouldn’t be discussing why it is that the Catholic Church advocates working your way to heaven in addition to faith. If it were “vocabulary”, then this Protestant would not be concerned over a difference in definition.

But the difference is in the Catholic’s concept of life after initial justification. If it includes work as an independent necessity to faith, instead of a natural coincidence of faith, then I disagree.

 

[PEPCIS]

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

"PEPCIS:

And your proof for this incredible statement is??? What?

When you make such incredible statements, you ought to be prepared to back them up.

Would you accept Scriptural proof?:

8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9As it is written: “He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor; his righteousness endures forever.” (2 Corinthians 9:8-9)

And this proves that “Faith produces not a single work”??? In direct opposition, this verse clearly shows that grace abounding in you is what produces the work, which is the same as saying that faith produces the work. If not for grace, there is no faith. If no faith, there are no works.

jcrichton:

9For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. 10And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully 12giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. (Colosians 1:9-12)

Another Scripture that shows that when “God fills us with the knowledge of His will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding” that we would then “live a life worthy of the Lord, pleasing Him in every way and bearing fruit in every good work…” And we know that God fills us with knowledge of His will by learning His Word, which works faith in us, and that faith then produces works, which bear fruit for Him.

jcrichton:

20May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, 21equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Hebrew 13:20-21)

Once again, the Word informs us that by our partaking of the “blood of the eternal covenant” that we become “equipped to do everything good for doing His will” where he thereby produces a “work in us that is pleasing to Him, through Jesus Christ. . .” We partake of the covenant whereby that faith produces works that are pleasing to Him.

jcrichton:

7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. (1 Corinthians 12:7-11)

Again, we see that God’s Spirit works within the believer, by impartation of justification which is by faith in Christ Jesus. The Holy Spirit does not produce such works EXCEPT in the life of a person who has faith in Jesus Christ. These works are the result of the faith that we have been given from God whose Spirit produces these wonderful works.

jcrichton:

It is the Grace of God that produces the various works with which the Believers can witness to the world that we are of and in Christ!

You could say that it was the love of God that produced the various works with which believers can witness to the world that we are of and in Christ. But the reality is that God’s love is commended to us by His grace, by the gift of faith - “for by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. . .” What is? Salvation is a gift of God, given by His good graces through the production of faith in the new believer.

 

[PEPCIS]

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.

No, it doesn’t say that the love of “Christians” will grow cold. It says that the love of ‘MANY’ will grow cold. That’s a reference to people in the world.

 

[una_fides]

The issue is NOT how I interpret God’s Word compared to “many protestants who interpret God’s Word. . . quite differently” but how I interpret God’s Word differently than an Arminianist (such as what you teach.)

Was that supposed to be an insult?? It almost sounded like you tried to insult me by calling me an Arminianist. First, your understanding of Catholicism and Arminianism is quite lacking. I suggest studying both more before making such claims. Just because I hold that man can fall from grace, as Luther also did, does not make me Armenian, and if it did, then that would make the Armenians correct.

 

[una_fides]

I read this here, and then I went online to read a more complete context of his statements, and the text that I found there did not match the text that you have here. Why is that?

The text at this web site (Christian Classics) doesn’t seem to contain any of that text. Is this the same book that Chrysostom wrote? Or are they two different? If so, he sure isn’t saying the same thing here as what you pasted into your post.

It was taken from a different source. Here is the link to the catena aurea, which is a compilation of writings from the early Church fathers on the four gospels: catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Matthew7.php It’s all there, word for word, so don’t you worry.

Here is some more Chrysostom in case you doubt which side of the heresy fence he rested (and had the heresies of “faith alone” and “once saved always saved” even existed in his day and if he were challenged with such teachings, no doubt he would have written much more explicitly condemning such ideas)

“What is the meaning of “[faith] 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. It is as if he had said, Had ye loved Christ as ye ought, ye would not have deserted to bondage, nor abandoned Him who redeemed you, nor treated with contumely Him who gave you freedom. Here he also hints at those who have plotted against them, implying that they would not have dared to do so, had they felt affection towards them. He wishes too by these words to correct their course of life.”

Read this one carefully a couple times and really consider what argument he is making:
Ver. 19, 20, 21. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wrath, factions, divisions, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I forewarn you even as I did forewarn you, that they which practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Answer me now, you that accusest your own flesh, and supposest that this is said of it as of an enemy and adversary. Let it be allowed that adultery and fornication proceed, as you assert, from the flesh; yet hatred, variance, emulations, strife, heresies, and witchcraft, these arise merely from a depraved moral choice. And so it is with the others also, for how can they belong to the flesh? You observe that he is not here speaking of the flesh, but of earthly thoughts, which trail upon the ground. Wherefore also he alarms them by saying, that they which practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If these things belonged to nature and not to a bad moral choice, his expression, they practice, is inappropriate, it should be, they suffer. And why should they be cast out of the kingdom, for rewards and punishments relate not to what proceeds from nature but from choice?

newadvent.org/fathers/23105.htm**
**

 

[una_fides]

John 15:2

Every branch in Me that bears not fruit the Father takes away.
Here He alludes to the manner of life, showing that without works it is not possible to be in Him.
And every branch that bears fruit, He purges it.
That is, causes it to enjoy great care. Yet the root requires care rather than the branches, in being dug about, and cleared, yet about this He says nothing here, but all about the branches. Showing that He is sufficient to Himself, and that the disciples need much help from the Husbandman, although they be very excellent. Wherefore He says, that which bears fruit, He purges it. The one branch, because it is fruitless, cannot even remain in the Vine, but for the other, because it bears fruit, He renders it more fruitful. This, some one might assert, was said with relation also to the persecutions then coming upon them. For the purges it, is prunes, which makes the branch bear better. Whence it is shown, that persecutions rather make men stronger.

John 15:5

He that abides in Me, and I in him.
Do you see that the Son contributes not less than the Father towards the care of the disciples? The Father purges, but He keeps them in Himself. The abiding in the root is that which makes the branches to be fruit-bearing. For that which is not purged, if it remain on the root, bears fruit, though perhaps not so much as it ought; but that which remains not, bears none at all. But still the purging also has been shown to belong to the Son, and the abiding in the root, to the Father, who also begot the Root. Do you see how all is common, both the purging, and the enjoying the virtue which is from the root?
2. Now it were a great penalty, the being able to do nothing, but He stays not the punishment at this point, but carries on His discourse farther.
**
John 15:6**

He is cast forth . . .
No longer enjoying the benefit of the husbandman’s hand. And is withered. That is, if he had anything of the root, he loses it; if any grace, he is stripped of this, and is bereft of the help and life which proceed from it. And what the end? He is cast into the fire. Not such he who abides with Him. Then He shows what it is to abide, and says,
**
John 15:10**

If you keep My commandments, even as I have kept my Father’s commandments.
…
3. Since then love is a thing mighty and irresistible, not a bare word, let us manifest it by our actions. He reconciled us when we were His enemies, let us, now that we have become His friends, remain so. He led the way, let us at least follow; Heloves us not for His own advantage, (for He needs nothing,) let us at least love Him for our profit; He loved us being His enemies, let us at least love Him being our friend.

newadvent.org/fathers/240176.htm

 

[una_fides]

It’s unfortunate, but the Council of Trent merely solidified Arminius’ teachings - not because they were correct, but because they were not “Protestant.”

Have you read Aquinas on this issue? He is quite similar to the Calvinist position on predestination on virtually everything except irresistible grace. And yes his is a Catholic position. There are actually several valid and permitted schools of thought within Catholicism. The only thing that is certain is what has been definitively established, which is that grace is not irresistible.
Please read this: catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
Hopefully that will help you to see how close the Catholic Church’s teachings can get to Calvinism as well as the range of thought permitted within the Church. On the extreme ends of the spectrum you have the Calvinists who claim that God wills both good and evil and that man has no real free will and the Pelagians who claim that man can be saved through his own will to do good apart from divine grace. The Catholic Church’s theology remains between these two spectra.

 

[una_fides]

That’s like saying that a leapord can change its diet, or can stop wearing spots. It’s impossible. A leapord MUST eat what it eats, and it MUST wear its spots. It cannot change what it is, anymore than a Christian could completely stop being a Christian.

What separates us from instinctual beasts is the free will Christ gave us to choose. We still can choose after we have been initially justified: Good or Evil. Man can most sincerely believe in Christ with all his heart and be converted and justified and then at a later time can choose to reject his teachings, choose to sin, and / or even abandon his faith altogether and believe something else. If a Muslim converts to Buddhism, you would not say that he was never really a Muslim to begin with. If a sincerely converted Christian, who has lived in Christ for years and has produced good fruits of his conversion, is later deceived and falls from the faith and leaves and joins a false religion, he would have been a Christian but then would be one no longer for his mind and heart has rejected the grace that placed him in the correct position.