How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

No, the love here is the divine gift “agape,” only Christians can have it. It makes no sense to say “love growing cold” is a problem if it has nothing to do with salvation. It’s like saying a cup of coffee became cold, that has nothing to do with salvation. An unbeliever doesn’t have any ‘love’ of any relevance to salvation.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

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.

Who are Christians SUPPOSED to think that interpretations come from? Do not interpretations belong to God? (Genesis 40:8) If I were so bold as to think and say that I alone can determine the interpretation, then I would surely NOT be interpreting properly.
una fides:

That’s why we defer to the higher authority in these matters.

That’s exactly the WRONG thing to do. We should ALWAYS defer to God? “All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13) Once we defer to OTHER men, how are we to know that they are interpreting according to God’s Spirit? We are commanded to TEST the spirits. This can only be done by God’s Spirit working in us.
una fides:

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.

While you make a “good-sounding” argument, the reality is that without God’s Word, there is absolutely no knowledge of God. The knowledge of God and who He is, and how He works, and what His will is, originated from Him. There is no other source of who He is, except by His Word.

 

[mikeledes]

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.

We are not saying that works are independent from faith. Good works are the outward manifestation of a faith that works through love. What we are saying is that once you have faith, you’re not a mindless robot automatically producing good works. For if that were the case, then why do Christians sin? Why is it that, though guided by the Spirit, the Christian choses to sin? Obviously, it’s not the Holy Spirit that causes us to sin. And there are several examples in Scripture where the righteous engage in grievous sin. Besides David, we also have the example of righteous King Solomon:

1 Kings 11:4-10

4For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.
5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites.
6Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not follow the LORD fully, as David his father had done.
7Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon. 8Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.
9Now the LORD was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel,who had appeared to him twice,
10and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the LORD had commanded.

Though this is an example from the Old Testament, the basic principles of salvation applies to both the Old and New Testament saints. Hebrews 11 makes that pretty clear. So here we have justified and regenerated Solomon turning away from the Lord and producing very bad fruit (i.e. marrying many women in violation of God’s command, worshipping other gods, and going through the expense of building places of woship for them. But we also have a clear example from the New Testament:

Galatians 1:6

6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Galatians 3:3

**3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? **

Galatians 4:9

**9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? **

Galatians 5:4

4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

These four passages are addressed to the same group of people among the Galatians. They have deserted Him who called them by the grace of Christ and have thus severed themselves from Christ and have fallen from grace. The fact that they were once in a state of grace is established when Paul says they “began with the Spirit”, but now they have fallen from grace.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

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.

una fides:

Again, this way is not the way Christ established. . . There was no Bible in the early Church. Christ’s Church was run on his teaching Tradition that he handed to them.

First off, there was a Bible in the early Church. It contained the OT, and the oral teachings of the apostles.

Second off, pardon me for the inuslt, but this is like debating an evolutionist!

I say that because when you debate an evolutionist, a creationist will argue using a definition of evolution that stays true to the context of the word (either macro or micro-evolution), but the evolutionist will slip subtly between these definitions, thereby thwarting the discovery of truth in the debate.

I feel like this is what you, Catholics, do, because you use “tradition” in one (Biblical) meaning, but you also use it to envelope a broader (extra-Biblical) definition. Then, when Protestants challenge you on tradition, you use it the way that the Bible uses it, all the while enveloping the broader definition that the Catholic Church really uses.

Here, I’ll give you the example that you just used: You say that “there was no Bible in the early Church. Christ’s Church (meaning the Catholic Church, whereas I would take that to mean the true, spiritual, Universal church) was run on his teaching Tradition that he handed to them.” You would then make several references to where Paul or one of the other apostles commanded a church to “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15)

Yet the apostles taught strictly what they heard from Christ, and did not develop NEW understandings, but taught from the OT Scriptures, and from their direct, personal experiences with Christ.

However, the Catholic Church has developed tradition which goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY beyond the tradition of the original apostles. The Catholic Church as developed teachings which can only be founded upon CATHOLIC tradition, and cannot be regarded as true CHRISTIAN tradition like what the apostles were handing down.

The Catholic church is falling into the same dang thing that the Pharisees and other religious leaders had done, developing traditions that enslaved their fellow man, causing him to worship and serve God out of a system of works, instead of a system based upon God’s love and grace.

Jesus had dealt with this issue:

“Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.” (Matthew 15:1-2)

Jesus then came back to illustrate for them the vast difference between TRUE tradition, and traditions made from men (“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” - Col.2:8).

“But Jesus answered and said unto them, Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3)

This is exactly what the Catholic Church is doing - causing men to transgress the commandments of God by adhering to their own traditions.

 

[PEPCIS]

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.

una fides:

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

To begin with, I merely reverted quickly to a traditional teaching that I had heard several times in the church, which stated that the water referred to the physical birth that we all go through. As a matter of fact, I was listening to “Back to the Bible with Woodrow Kroll” the other day, and you won’t believe what I heard!! Doctor Kroll said that the water in this verse referred to the physical birth that we all go through.

Apparently, there are things that are taught that are not derived from a contextual interpretation of the Bible, that Christians pick up and don’t pay a lot of attention to. Christians have to be careful!!

I then began to read the passage again, and found that there were a couple of notes in my Bible that cross-referenced to where the Word was described by water. After that, I searched the internet to see if there were other men of God who might have come to similar conclusions.

I then compared the two interpretations to see which one would more closely associate with the Bible in its entirety, and I believe that it more closely associates with the Water being the Word of God.

I didn’t save my search results, so I couldn’t tell you WHO I read. But I can tell you that water referring to physical birth has absolutely no Scriptural support.

 

[mikeledes]

Pepcis, you said earlier in your explanation of the parable of the sower that in the case of those who did not persevere that there was a “work of grace” involved, though they were not truly saved. Are you referring to the concept of “evanescent” grace?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

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.”

mikeledes:

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

Sorry, you got that wrong. Nowhere does it say that these branches ever abided “in Christ”. The passage speaks of two kinds of “branches”: those that produce fruit, and those that don’t. It is only the branches which abide “in Christ” which produce fruit. Those that do not abide do not produce fruit.

“Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away that’s the branch that does NOT produce fruit]: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.obviously, this is the branch that produces fruit]” (John 15:2)

Notice that Jesus says: “If a man DOES NOT abide 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.”

Christ does not cast branches off that abide in Him, or that produce fruit. If they NEVER produced fruit, then they are cast off. If they only produced a little bit at the beginning, then they would never be cast off, because Jesus says that He won’t let that happen. He states that those branches that do bear fruit (no matter how small), “he purgeth it [trims it and prunes it] that it may bring forth MORE fruit.” Jesus doesn’t cut away a branch that stopped producing, because none of the branches which He grafts onto the tree stop producing - that’s because he trims and prunes those branches in order to produce even MORE fruit.

 

[mikeledes]

**

Sorry, you got that wrong. Nowhere does it say that these branches ever abided “in Christ”. The passage speaks of two kinds of “branches”: those that produce fruit, and those that don’t. It is only the branches which abide “in Christ” which produce fruit. Those that do not abide do not produce fruit.

“Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away that’s the branch that does NOT produce fruit]: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.obviously, this is the branch that produces fruit]” (John 15:2)

Notice that Jesus says: “If a man DOES NOT abide 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.”.

Actually, you’re the one that got it wrong. Christ* clearly* states that the branches in question are IN HIM:

2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away…

You cannot be IN HIM if you are not a true Christian.

Secondly, your interpretation is not supported by the original Greek. The Greek word translated abide is “meno” and that word means to stay, continue, or remain where you are. Here are some examples from Scripture:

Matthew 26:38

**Then He said to them, “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain (meno) here and keep watch with Me.” **

John 7:9

Having said these things to them, He stayed (meno) in Galilee.

Acts 16:15

**And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay .” And she prevailed upon us. **

These are just a couple of examples. If you have not entered into a person’s house, you logically cannot stay or remain in it. If something was never a part of a vine, then logically you cannot remain -BY DEFINITION - in something you were never a part of. So when Jesus says “do not abide”, He means do not continue, stay, or remain in Him. Which means the person was once a part of the True Vine but did not remain attached to it. They will have the vital power to bear fruit as long as they abide in Christ.

Moreover, John 15:6 does not support your interpretation:

**6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

Note the order of events. The branch is first cut off and then dries up. The “drying up” is a result of being cut off and indicates that at one point it had life, but lost it when it was cut off from the vine. So Jesus clearly indicates that if we do not remain in Him, we will be deprived of the spiritual life we receive from Him and eventually cast into the fire.

Finally, Romans 11 reinforces the fact that Jesus is talking about true believers:

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Verse 20 indicates that Paul is speaking about Gentile believers (i.e. your faith) who have been grafted in. However, Paul warns them to continue in God’s kindness or they too will be cut off. Moreover, in Galatians 5:4 we see a severing from Christ the True Vine in action:

**4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

Actually, you’re the one that got it wrong. Christ* clearly* states that the branches in question are IN HIM:

**2"Every branch in Me **that does not bear fruit, He takes away…

You cannot be IN HIM if you are not a true Christian.

Sorry, you’re confused. “In him” and “abide in Me” are two different things. You tried to say that “The passage says that they do not remain in Christ, which means that at one time they were in Christ”, as if the term “in Christ” were the equal to “being saved” or “abiding in Christ.”

But there are two things here that must be distinguished: false professors who sit in the pews - those that are the “branches in Me that do not bear fruit” which He takes away - and true believers who “abide in Christ” - those that are the “branches in Me that DO bear fruit that bringeth forth much fruit.”

mikeledes:

John 15:6 does not support your interpretation:

6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Note the order of events. The branch is first cut off and then dries up. The “drying up” is a result of being cut off and indicates that at one point it had life, but lost it when it was cut off from the vine. So Jesus clearly indicates that if we do not remain in Him, we will be deprived of the spiritual life we receive from Him and eventually cast into the fire.

Wrong. The branch which is the false professor gets benefits of being affiliated with the Church, and takes from her what he can. But when it is cut off, it can no longer benefit from this false relationship, and it therefore dries up. Clearly, every branch that is “in Me” is not necessarily a branch which abides “in Christ.” If that branch which is “in Me” were “abiding in Christ,” then it would be producing fruit, and it would not be cut off.

mikeledes:

Finally, Romans 11 reinforces the fact that Jesus is talking about true believers:

The problem with your interpretation here is that you failed to take into account that Paul is not referring to individuals, but to the nation of Israel. Judgment had come to the Israelites, and any Jew who was found to not be a believer was cut off.

I use to prune apple trees when I lived up north, and one thing that we did every spring was to cut away any branches which were not producing fruit, or had withered up. Now, don’t mistake this natural process for the same process which God uses to cut away those branches which HAD NEVER BELIEVED. It’s different.

The purpose of the pruning is similar, and that is why Paul uses that analogy. But the process which brings about branches which are not producing is much different in the Spiritual process than in the natural world. In the Spiritual process, it’s like planting a church. When the church was first planted, every member was a believer. But as children grew, and generations passed, and new people moved into the neighborhood, the status of how many were believers changed.

For Israel, the parents of the once true believers had produced a nation of non-believers, so that there were many false professors in the tree. Paul’s admonition was twofold:

1. 
   *]to these Jews: to warn them of the judgment which had passed.
   *]to us: to warn us not to fall under the same error.
   
   
   mikeledes:
   

   Verse 20 indicates that Paul is speaking about Gentile believers (i.e. your faith) who have been grafted in. However, Paul warns them to continue in God’s kindness or they too will be cut off.

   Exactly. If you fail to teach your children, and to watch out for false professors in your midst, you will end up with a tree which has many non-producing branches. This is definitely something to fear.
   
   
   mikeledes:
   

   Moreover, in Galatians 5:4 we see a severing from Christ the True Vine in action:
   
   4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

   This passage is Paul’s version of a rhetorical exercise. He presents two scenarios:
   
   Scenario 1: Those of you who stand fast in the liberty where Christ has made us free.
   
   Scenario 2: Those of you who you are justified by the law - adherence to the law as a means of grace
   
   Conclusions: Do not become entangled again with the yoke of bondage - which is adherence to the law as a means of grace.
   If ye be circumcised [adhere to the law as a means of grace], Christ shall profit you nothing [Christ delivers salvation by grace, not by the law]

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

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.

That’s the illusion. There is no choice. You do what you are. That’s why Ephesians 2 says that we “used to walk according to the course of this world, according to the Prince of the power of the air.” We didn’t even know that we were serving him.

The Bible says that those of us who are spiritually dead do not even know it, and that whenever we hear the Gospel message, it is foolishness to us.
una fides:

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.

That’s what the Catholic church teaches, but there is no Biblical support for that.

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.

una fides:

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.

I disagree with you because Scripture teaches something entirely different than what you related. Our experiences can fool us, which is why they are not to be trusted. According to the Bible, Jesus teaches that any branch that produces fruit, He prunes it so that it will produce more. According to your experiences, you are trying to say that any branch that stops producing fruit, that Jesus will NOT prune it so that it will produce more, or to prevent it from not producing fruit. Whom should I believe?
una fides:

But again, I completely fell away from the faith.

I don’t doubt that. But you were merely experiencing a deep personal experience which was not spiritual in origin, but was emotionally driven. You naturally mistook this for the salvational experience.
una fides:

Your conclusion would be that I never really had faith to begin with, but my own knowledge and experience contradicts your conclusion.

That’s true. Your false understanding and your misleading experience contradicts what the Bible teaches.
una fides:

You are ignoring mans free will.

Man has a will. It is NOT free according to the Bible.
una fides:

It is not an allusion.

If man had free will, he would almost always certainly choose AGAINST God. That is his nature.
una fides:

Man is most certainly guided by grace, and God’s grace precedes every good work of ours.

Only the man who will be saved is moved and guided by God’s grace, which precedes salvation.
una fides:

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.

Actually, it is on probably ALL the points that Catholics disagree, but that would be another topic.

 

[mikeledes]

Actually, it is on probably ALL the points that Catholics disagree, but that would be another topic.

Not really. I’m Catholic and I believe in unconditional election, as did Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Robert Bellarmine, and many other Catholics.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Sorry, you’re confused. “In him” and “abide in Me” are two different things. You tried to say that “The passage says that they do not remain in Christ, which means that at one time they were in Christ”, as if the term “in Christ” were the equal to “being saved” or “abiding in Christ.”

But there are two things here that must be distinguished: false professors who sit in the pews - those that are the “branches in Me that do not bear fruit” which He takes away - and true believers who “abide in Christ” - those that are the “branches in Me that DO bear fruit that bringeth forth much fruit.”

Actually, you’re the one that’s confused and the original Greek does not support your view. First of all, the Bible uniformly uses “in Him” or “in Christ” as a reference to someone who is saved. That is an undisputed fact, unless you can provide Scripture where a* person *is described as being “in Christ” and yet not saved? The branch in question is described by Christ Himself as being in Him and therefore one who has been incorporated into Christ and hence saved. No false professor can be incorporated into Christ.

Secondly, the Greek word translated “abide” is meno simply means to “stay” or “continue.” If you want, you can look it up in the following Greek lexicon:

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

And this is established by the following verse:

**4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

A branch does not have the vital power to bear fruit unless it abides (i.e. remains united) to the vine. If a branch is cut off from the vine and hence cut off from the life giving sap of the Vine, it cannot bear fruit. We do not have the vital power to bear fruit unless we remain united to Christ. Now if I say a branch is in the vine or a branch* remains *in the vine, there is NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE. In both instances, I am indicating that the branch is an integral part of the vine. If I enter a house and three hours later I am still in the house, then you can either say “Michael is in the house” or “Michael remains in the house.” In both cases, I am in the house. So there is substantively no difference between someone who is in Him and someone who stays in Him because THEY ARE BOTH IN HIM. If I was never in the house, then you would not say - either in English or in the Greek (meno) - that I did not stay or remain in the house because that indicates -BY DEFINITION - that I once was in the house.

Now you talk about a person who sits in the pews as being the “branch in him that does not bear fruit.” The problem with this view is not only that the person is described as being “in him” - a phrase the Bible uniformly reserves for someone who is saved - but also that Christ clearly identified the Vine not as a visible organization or congregation, but as Himself. In other words, in order for your view to be correct, Christ should have said that the True Vine is the Church. A person can sit in the pews their entire life, but if that person is not a true believer, then they can never be “in Christ.”

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

This passage is Paul’s version of a rhetorical exercise. He presents two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Those of you who stand fast in the liberty where Christ has made us free.

Scenario 2: Those of you who you are justified by the law - adherence to the law as a means of grace

Conclusions: Do not become entangled again with the yoke of bondage - which is adherence to the law as a means of grace.
If ye be circumcised [adhere to the law as a means of grace], Christ shall profit you nothing [Christ delivers salvation by grace, not by the law]

I’m short on time, so I’ll address this part now. The problem with this view is that the tense Paul uses indicates that he is not presenting a hypothetical scenario or a rhetorical exercise. He does not say “you will be severed from Christ, you will fall from grace.” He say you have been (past tense) severed from Christ, you have fallen (past tense) from grace. The aorist tense in Greek indicates a completed action. And that he is referring to an actual group of people who have deserted Christ:

Galatians 1:6

6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Galatians 3:3

**3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? **

Galatians 4:9

**9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? **

Of these who have come to know and be known by God and have deserted Him who called them and, having started with the Spirit, and are now being perfected by the flesh, Paul says:

Galatians 5:4

4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

There is no mere rhetorical device here. He is referring to a specific group of people and to these he say that they have been severed from Christ and have fallen from grace.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Yet there were arguments made by Augustine which clearly points to sola scriptura.

This tendency to present the early Church Fathers as proto-Protestant is unconvincing to anyone who has taken the time to study patristics.

For example, St. Augustine affirmed: “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (St. Augustine, Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 5).

For someone to attribute a Sola Scriptura belief to St. Augustine can only mean they haven’t bothered to read St. Augustine’s works.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am wondering what the Catholic response is when Protestants site John 3:16(“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”) in support of their “saved by faith alone” belief.

I normally respond by citing a Calvinist commentary on this passage…

“Throughout this passage an important truth is presented that again might be missed by many English translations. When Jesus describes the one who comes to him and who believes in him [3:16, 5:24, 6:35, 37, 40, 47, etc.], he uses the present tense to describe this coming, believing, or, in other passages, hearing or seeing. The present tense refers to a continuous, on-going action. The Greek contrasts this kind of action against the aorist tense, which is a point action, a single action in time that is not on-going. . . . The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ ***are not for those who do not truly and continuously believe. ***The faith that saves is a living faith, a faith that always looks to Christ as Lord and Savior.” [James White, Drawn By the Father: A Summary of John 3:35-45, 10-11]

This doesn’t prove “once saved, always saved” but instead teaches “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt 24:13). We know that not all those given the gift of faith endure in that faith until the end. Jesus, for example, prayed that Peter’s faith not fail. This passage of Scripture is made meaningless by those who insist that faith never fail. Why pray for faith to not fail if by definition, faith cannot fail?

Jn 3:16 and like passages teach us that all those who continuously [that is, **perseveringly] come to Jesus will not be cast out by Jesus. That’s absolutely true. That’s Augustinian teaching. The elect are those who, having been given the gift of perseverance by God Himself, will never be cast out by Jesus.

Does anybody know with absolute certainty that they are among those who not only have been given the gift of faith by God, but also have been given the gift of final perseverance?

According to St. Augustine, as consistently held by Catholic teaching to this day, unless given a special revelation by God himself, the faithful cannot know with absolute certainty that they’ve been given the gift of final perseverance as long as they still live in a wayfairing state here on earth. One can have hopeful confidence, but to claim absolute certainty is the sin of presumption.

Christians should understand that, according to Scripture, it is possible to “fall from grace” and become “severed from Christ” (Gal 5:4), even if they were, as St. Paul affirmed, "all sons of God* through faith in Christ Jesus**…you are all one in Christ Jesus.* " (Gal 3:26-28)

So, St. Paul warns the “sons of God” from Galatia they may be “severed from Christ.” Consequently, St. Paul and St. Augustine were preaching the same Christian doctrine.

According to St. Augustine:

“I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. …For if any one have … faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these virtues* and to have them no longer*; for he was…righteous…he was believing, as long as he was so; but when*** he ceased to be so***, he no longer is what he was.” [Augustine, *Predestination of the Saints, Bk II

, ch. 1]

John Calvin is quoted as saying, “Augustine is so completely of our persuasion, that if I should have to make written profession, it would be quite enough to present a composition made up entirely of excerpts from his writings.”

Calvin would have done much better if he actually had presented ONLY excerpts from Augustine.

In the final analysis, only “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt 24:13)

 

[onenow1]

I am wondering what the Catholic response is when Protestants site John 3:16(“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”) in support of their “saved by faith alone” belief.

HI,All Luke 13: 23someone asked Him Lord will only a few people be saved, 24 "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
25 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us.' He will answer you, I do not know where you come from.’
26 Then you will begin to say, We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.' 27 But he will say, I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!’

If I may be so bold, I think both verses say the same. Lk 24 Strive to enter [meaning no guarantee.] Jn. 3 that whoever believes in Him should not perish, again no guarantee.

Peace,onenow1opcorn:

 

[mgull]

For someone to attribute a Sola Scriptura belief to St. Augustine can only mean they haven’t bothered to read St. Augustine’s works.

Amen brother. Even if he did adhere to the heresy of sola scriptura, it would be in reference to the ENTIRE Bible, all 73 Books. In The Confessions of Saint Augustine he quotes the “Apocrypha,” or the seven deuterocanonicals, 21 times, with him being a BIG fan of the Book of Wisdom, which he cites 17 of those 21 times. Personally, I love it when protestants, especially evangelicals, use St. Augustine in a debate, considering he believed in infant baptism, baptismal regerneration, the fact that you can fall away from Grace after becoming a believer, purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc. Gosh! I just love it because he was a Roman Catholic!

Does anyone know when this idea of God being some kind of puppet master ever became popular. If He controlled our will, then why on Earth would he let “true believers” sin?

 

[geekborj]

I am wondering what the Catholic response is when Protestants site John 3:16(“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”) in support of their “saved by faith alone” belief.

For Catholics, “to believe” is “to have a will to love Christ.” The key word is the “will,” not a feeling. Hence, the Catholic Faith.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

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.

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

I gave a lot of thought about your answer for several days before I decided to reply. That’s because it’s one of those replies that are highly condescending, and it reaches deep into my emotions. It was a reply that slaps you in the face for your “ignorance.” As I didn’t want to react from pure emotion, I waited to reply.

It’s a silly retort, because it implies that I am not able to understand God’s Word without the aid of the Catholic Church. Only she can provide believers with an authoritative interpretation.

In the end, either this statement is true, and I am going to hell, as she has proclaimed in the past, or the Catholic religion is built upon fear and works. There were several individual Catholics who seemed to find enough time to ridicule Protestants, without giving any feedback or reason. It’s a wholesale hate-fest for some of you.

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.
una fides:

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?

I am saying, according to the Bible, that one can be sitting in the pew and never have true faith in Him. That is what the Bible says. It says clearly “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away. . . As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.”

It’s an ANALOGY. It’s a comparison of something real and tangible, to something that illustrates for us a key truth. We are not to create several truths from the analogy, but to examine it for the key truth. The key truth is that you must ABIDE IN HIM.

Now, if you carefully examine this verse which I quoted, you will see that Christ is saying that a branch can be attached to the tree, but if it is not connected at the spiritual level (abiding in Him), it will NOT produce fruits of the Spirit.

Paul says clearly that if you are attached to the tree, that you will produce fruit. But, he warned the Galatians against trying to produce fruit by working, instead of relying on Christ’s union and their abiding in that union as the means for producing fruit. He attempted to correct this heresy by telling them:

“You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ bwas publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

It wasn’t a matter of whether or not they were capable of producing fruit - as believers they WOULD produce fruit. The matter was that they were falling into the same error as the Catholic Church by saying that you MUST work to perfect your faith. An indulgence in this error gives a skewed understanding of Christianity and what Christ actually performed for us on the cross, and also skews our interpretation of the Scriptures.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:44 All those who are drawn and come to God will be raised up on the last day. The term last day in the context of John 6 refers to the resurrection of glory (John 6:40).

I know this won’t convince anyone except me.

 

[una_fides]

Who are Christians SUPPOSED to think that interpretations come from? Do not interpretations belong to God? (Genesis 40:8) If I were so bold as to think and say that I alone can determine the interpretation, then I would surely NOT be interpreting properly.

The verse cited about taken in context is referring to the interpretations of dreams and not each person interpreting God’s Word and taking it to mean something different. There is only one correct interpretation of God’s Word, and we cannot presume on our own accord that we have individually interpreted it correctly, especially when divorcing ourselves from the universal understanding of those who first received and lived out those teachings. If “interpretations belong to God,” then how do you possibly explain the many differing interpretations that are all attributed as being brought about by the Holy Spirit? What makes your interpretation any different than someone else’s other than that you agree with it because it is yours.

That’s exactly the WRONG thing to do. We should ALWAYS defer to God? “All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13) Once we defer to OTHER men, how are we to know that they are interpreting according to God’s Spirit? We are commanded to TEST the spirits. This can only be done by God’s Spirit working in us.

We are not to rely on our own private interpretations but we are to defer to those whom God has placed in authority to determine these matters.
Pro 12:15 “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that is wise hearkens unto counsels.”

Jdg 17:6; 21:25 “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
As the context of this verse demonstrates, when every man does what is right in his own eyes, he will go astray from the sovereign Good.

You don’t realize this but you said we do not defer to a higher authority but instead we defer to God. Many people have an understanding as if God thinks exactly as they do. In truth, God is the higher authority to which we defer. And God has ordained a higher earthly authority that he himself has vested over his flock.

1Th 5:12-13 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you; That you esteem them more abundantly in charity, for their work’s sake. Have peace with them.

Act 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.

What is meant by the word “rule”? What parallel can be drawn? Let’s look at what the Scriptures say:

Requirements of a bishop:
1Ti 3:4-5 One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
Col 3:20, 22 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord. … Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh: not serving to the eye, as pleasing men: but in simplicity of heart, fearing God.

The fathers from the beginning clearly understood the role of the bishops in governing the Church:
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and martyr, disciple of St. John the apostle: ~AD110: “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm