How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[una_fides]

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.

I absolutely agree that we only know God through his revelation. Sola Verbum: only through His Word do we have public revelation whereby we can know God. God’s Word in the early Church was communicated primarily orally, and the preferred means to communicate the gospel was by word of mouth (3Jo_1:12-14).
See *2Th_2:13-15 ; 2Th_3:6 ; 1Co_11:2 ; Joh_17:14 ; *2Ti_1:13-14 ; *2Ti_2:2 ; Act_2:42 ; *Rom_6:17 ; 1Co_11:23 ; 1Co_15:3 ; Gal_1:9-12 ; Col_2:8 ; *1Th_2:13 ; *Jud_1:3 ; *1Ti_6:20-21
Also for the Word communicated orally: Act_6:7 ; Act_11:16 ; Act_12:24 ; Act_13:5 ; Act_13:7 ; Act_15:7 ; *Act_15:27 ; Act_16:30-33 ; Act_17:11 (the word of God and the Scriptures differentiated) ; Act_19:20 ; *Rom_10:17 (the word is heard–oral communication) ; 1Co_15:2 ; 2Co_4:2 ; Eph_1:13 ; Eph_5:25-27 (v.26 - “word” is both spoken and written as also is the case in Eph_6:17) ; Col_1:5-6 ; Col_4:3 ; 1Th_1:5 ; 1Th_2:13 ; Heb_11:3 ; Heb_13:7 ; 1Pe_1:25

The problem is when one limits the Word of God to only that which is written and ignores the oral teachings of the apostles. The early Church fathers received both and they also had the written Word understood in the cultural context as well as within the rest of the apostles oral teachings that corresponded and did not contradict the written Word. The oral Tradition that the Catholic Church follows does not contradict the written Word when they are both properly understood. The problem is that most people who oppose the Catholic Church and her teachings do so out of misconceptions. They do not bother to look in depth enough to see how they correspond to the Scriptures, or they approach with a biased perspective that assumes that the teachings contradict Scripture rather than giving a fair treatment to the available evidence. Either the Church is the pillar and foundation of the one truth taught by the apostles and preserved through their successors, or the Word of God (both oral and written) was wrong.

 

[mikeledes]

“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.

The error of the Galatians was that they were reverting to the Mosaic Law, and hence Paul’s constant reference throughout his letter to circumcision. Later, he says:

Galatians 6:7

7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.

Secondly, what he says in Galatians 5:4 is not a warning, it’s a statement of fact:

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

The words “severed” and “fallen” in Greek are in the aorist tense - which refers to a completed action (past tense). In other words, he does not say you will be severed or you will fall. He says you have been severed, you have fallen. In other words, it has already occurred. And other passages in Galatians makes it clear that Paul is speaking of true believers.

Secondly, the tense used in John 6 is Greek present tense, and that refers to a continuous or ongoing action. So it is clear that those who will be raised on the last day are those who persevere in faith. Moreover, the Catholic Church teaches that all those who have predestined to glory by God will be glorified. It is the dogma of the Church that the number of those who are predestined is immutable, none can be added and none can be lost. Therefore, all those who are predestined to glory will persevere in a faith formed by love. However, where we differ from Calvinists is that we believe that while all of the predestined will be justified and glorified, not all of the justified are numbered among the predestined. In other words, the number of the predestined is not coextensive with the number of the justified. This is the historic teaching of the Church as taught in Scripture and the Early Church Fathers (especially Saint Augustine). This was also upheld by Martin Luther himself and is taught by the Lutheran Church.

We believe that not all of the justified are numbered among the predestined precisely because Scripture indicates that not all of the justified will persevere (i.e John 15:2, 6, Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6, etc.). Regarding the predestined, God will grant them efficacious graces - especially the great gift of final perseverance - that will secure their glorification. However, we maintain that man’s will remains truly free under the influence of God’s grace. So the passages that seemingly contradict each other actually complement each other. One passage does not override the other - which in my opinion is the problem with both Calvinists and Arminians. The Calvinists focus on certain passages and then try to explain away those passages that contradict their interpretation of those passages and the classical Arminians focus on certain passages and then try to explain away the “Calvinist” verses.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

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.

Again, neither the Greek nor the Biblical usage of “in Christ” supports this view. According to the Bible, the branch is attached to Christ and it is not mere membership in a congregation. You have yet to provide a single passage outside of John 15 that clearly described a false professor as being “in Christ” The phrase “in Christ” refers to a spiritual and saving union, connection, or attachment to Christ. This phrase and its variants (in Me, in Him, etc.) is uniformly used in Scripture as a reference to a salvific relationship with* Christ* and not to a mere attachment to a congregation. Christ is very clear about the “fruitless” branch of John 15:2:

**2"Every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit… **

A person who is a mere false professor cannot be in Christ. Christ tells his apostles to abide in Him because they are already in Him. Therefore, He is teaching them the importance of staying or remaining in Him and the consequence a person will suffer if they are in Him and do not stay (Gk. meno) in Him. You cannot grammatically say “do not remain/stay/continue in Me” if the person was never “in Me” in the first place. And John 15:2 indicates that the branches in question are in Him.

Now if we are in Him, we have the vital power from the Vine to produce fruit. But we are not mindless robots. Most good works that we perform are conscious choices to do good, just as many times we also consciously chose to sin. If we do not remain in Him, we lose this vital power and the life that comes from the Vine, and this is perfectly illustrated by John 15:6:

** 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.**

From what is the person thrown away? From the True Vine, namely, Christ. This person has been severed from Christ and hence has fallen from grace. And what is the consequence of this severing? Christ clearly says that the person “dries up,” which means he loses the life and vital power to bear fruit that he possessed while he was still attached to the Vine. And the end is eternal damnation.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

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.

1. 
   First of all, the branches do not refer to “people groups” or “nations” but to individuals. Paul clearly says:
   
   Romans 11:17-18
   
   1**7But if SOME of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree **
   
   That the branches refer to individual Israelites is clear when Paul states that only some of the branches (i.e. plural) have been broken off. In other words, of the Israelite branches, some have been broken off and some remain. The fact that Israelite branches remain is demonstrated when he says that the Gentile believers have been “grafted in AMONG THEM (i.e. plural)” So the Gentile believers have been grafted in among the Jewish believer that remain a part of the tree. So the fact that Paul makes a clear distinction between those Israelites that have been broken off and Israelites that remain makes it clear that he is speaking of individuals.
   
   He then says:
   
   **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. **
   
   In this passages (v.v 20-22), Paul is speaking about Gentile believers who have been grafted into the tree. We know he is speaking to and about Gentile believers because he clearly states that they " stand by their faith." As believers, they have been grafted into the tree and thus enjoy God’s kindness. However, Paul warns them not to become arrogant, but fear. They should fear because if God did not spare the natural branches and thus cut them off, He will not spare them and cut them off if they do not continue in His kindness. In other words, Paul explicitly states that God will cut off BELIEVING branches if they do not continue in His kindness.
   
   God Bless,
   Michael

 

[mikeledes]

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. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[una_fides]

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.

God Bless,
Michael

St. Augustine
For what Christian would dare to deny that the righteous man, if he should be prematurely laid hold of by death, will be in repose? Let who will, say this, and what man of sound faith will think that he can withstand it? Moreover, if he should say that the righteous man, if he should depart from his righteousness in which he has long lived, and should die in that impiety after having lived in it, I say not a year, but one day, will go hence into the punishment due to the wicked, his righteousness having no power in the future to avail him,— will any believer contradict this evident truth? newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm

 

[una_fides]

you [Catholics] 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.

By “extra-biblical” I’m assuming you have an idea that goes beyond the fact that there is a Tradition that exists beyond what the Bible alone teaches and that somehow this “extra-biblical” Tradition that the Catholic Church holds to somehow contradicts the “biblical Tradition” that you have in mind. In reality, the Bible does not contain all the teachings of Christ nor does it anywhere claim to. Again you must remember that the Church did not have a canonized NT until AD 397 and the OT Scriptures did not have any explicit teachings of the New Covenant practices nor do they contain the gospel of Christ. The OT is a prefiguring. You need the New Covenant to complete the old. Christ passed on his teachings to his apostles who passed them on to their followers primarily orally, and many of the things that Christ and the apostles taught were NOT written down in Scripture. This “extra-biblical” Tradition, as you called it, does not contradict Scripture, and it is most certainly biblical! Scripture is part of a larger complete teaching Tradition from Christ that he communicated orally to his disciples. Scripture is a part of that Tradition. Jesus taught the apostles many things and performed many miraculous works than are recorded in the Scriptures (). Lastly, virtually every teaching of the Catholic Church has some root in the Scriptures. There are a few that are based on the authority of the Church that Christ has given to her, and this authority also was explicitly acknowledged by in Scripture and universally in the early Church as well. This authority goes well beyond that of the religious leaders in the OT for to none of them was it ever written “whose so ever sins you forgive are forgiven” or “whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” or that the Jewish church was the “pillar and foundation of truth.” The NT Church was a fulfillment of what the Old Covenant lacked, which was an infallible guide promised and fulfilled by the Holy Spirit guiding her flock through the shepherds that He has appointed.

 

[una_fides]

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.

These “direct personal experiences with Christ” encompassed much more than what the apostles wrote down in the four gospels as St. John himself attests:
John 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

The apostles were also given a special revelation by the Holy Spirit concerning the many things that Christ did not tell the apostles when he was on earth, and He also brought the things back to mind, which He did teach them along with understanding:

John 16:7, 12-14: “But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go. For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send him to you. … I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you. He shall glorify me: because he shall receive of mine and shall show it to you.”

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.

Here are two articles about the “traditions of men” vs the “Tradition of God”:
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9010frs.asp

You miss the correct understanding of what Christ was condemning. He was not condemning Jewish Tradition that was received and developed legitimately throughout the centuries. He was condemning their man-made tradition, which consisted of laws and additional rules and such that had no basis in Revelation and in fact contradicted the most fundamental of teachings, such as love of neighbor. For this reason, Christ continually calls them hypocrites. Nevertheless, Christ still instructed his followers to obey them. Matthew 23:2-3 “Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.” He instructed his followers to obey them because they had legitimate authority over them. Christ did not say to break away from them and form another separate Jewish community and establish local authorities, etc. He said to obey them because they had the legitimate seat of authority. Christ clearly understood such authority and the Old Covenant foreshawdowed the New and perfect covenant when Christ would establish the apostles and their successors as the heads of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, so that the sheep could have shepherds following The Shepherd, who is Christ. Our Lord before his Ascension made sure to instruct Peter, the prince of the apostles, to “feed his sheep” (John 21:15-17), and he who feeds a sheep is a shepherd. Christ did not leave us as the blind following the blind each one trying to discern the truth on his own without any guides. When he founded his perfect religion, he made sure to give his Church the Holy Spirit to be with them until the end of the world continuing to guide her and preserve her in his teachings until he comes again in glory to receive her as his bride.

 

[hawkeye]

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.

Not everyone that says Lord Lord…satan believes in Jesus, I doubt if he’s saved, which means believing has been misinterpreted by a many.

 

[una_fides]

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.

Acts 8:30-31 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

My point in asking you where you got your new interpretation of that passage is that we do not gain our understanding of Scripture based solely on reading other Scriptures and interpreting them. We must first be shown what it means by someone and then we read and understand according to the teaching tradition in which it was explained. The early Church fathers received these oral teachings directly from the apostles such as how the Eunich was taught by Philip who was taught by Christ. Every teaching tradition apart from the Catholic faith can be traced to a specific starting point in history other than Christ. The Catholic Church’s teachings are all found in Scripture and in the teaching Tradition of the apostles. They rest in her authority. It all boils down to authority. Did Christ institue his Church by the means of giving people Scripture to intepret on their own individually and arrive at their own truths or did he found a Church and give her leaders an authority to hand down the teachings he entrusted to her?

 

[una_fides]

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…quote]
If free will is an allusion and if we are only acting as God wills us to, then how could God will sin? According to that theology, why if our will belongs solely to Christ does he then move us and move our wills to commit sin? How could a good and perfect God not only will sin but actually move one to commit it? Not only that, but according to this theology, God actually moves the will of the reprobate to commit evil as well. Herein lies one of the biggest problems with Calvinistic thinking. It makes God the author of evil. When faced with this obvious contradiction, Calvin basically just denies that God is the author since he wasn’t the human instrument that God moved to commit the evil deeds. I’m sorry but that just doesn’t work. God permits evil in order to accomplish a greater good, but because God is only good, he does not and cannot actively move someone to do evil. The evil in the world is a result of man’s bad choices. God gives us the grace and influences us for GOOD not for evil.

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.

It depends from which perspective you’re coming. I think there is a substantial amount of biblical support, and I’ve already posted several verses on here and others have as well. We’ve also shown how the early Church fathers also hold to the same understanding of those verses. Yet you still claim there is no biblical support.

I disagree with you because Scripture teaches something entirely different than what you related.

When you say things like this it honestly drives me nuts because you keep speaking of Scripture as if there were only one interpretation of it in the world and that yours was the only correct one and could not possibly be flawed in any way. The Scriptures are NOT clear on this matter in the sense that anyone can read them and come to your conclusion without already being indoctrinated. If the Scriptures were clear, then there would be agreement among your fellow sola Scripturaists. You would at least expect the credited founder of sola Scriptura and faith alone theologies to agree with you, but he believed the Scriptures “clearly” taught something completely different.

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?
You should believe the correct understanding of those verses, which is that those branches that are IN Christ can be taken away if they fail to produce fruit. You cannot be IN Christ if you have never been justified. Nowhere in Scripture can you find it referring to one being IN Christ as being the reprobate. Do a Scripture search on that phrase and see what you come up with.

2Co 5:17 If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away. Behold all things are made new.
This verse clearly states that anyone in Christ is a new creature, and that language is clearly referring to one that has been justified.

Here are some other verses I quickly pulled:
Rom 6:3-4 Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:11 So do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Rom 8:1 There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh.
1Co 1:2 To the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place of theirs and ours.
1Co 1:4 I give thanks to my God always for you, for the grace of God that is given you in Christ Jesus:
1Co 15:22 And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
2 Corinthians 1:21-22 Now he that confirmeth us with you in Christ and that hath anointed us, is God: Who also hath sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts.
I could continue, but I think the first verse I cited above should hopefully be enough.

 

[una_fides]

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.

So then no one can know whether or not he was truly saved until he makes it there then. Correct? If I mistook my faith for an “emotional experience,” then what’s to say you’re not doing the same thing right now?

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

Again “the Bible teaches” meaning what you think the Bible teaches.

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

What verse(s) say that man does not have a free will? I’ve read many that say that man does have free will.

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

Man does choose against God and hence there is sin. By your definition then, what would sin be? Would sin be the evil that is produced from God directing one’s will against himself? To sin is to essentially say “not Thy will but mine be done.”

 

[una_fides]

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.

I appreciate your waiting to reply to that post, and on second reading, I can see how you could have taken it that way. I didn’t mean my comments to be in any way uncharitable or seem condescending, but I do see how they came across like that. To be completely honest, I simply posted my thoughts quickly without thinking about how they might be received. I realize I could have worded them differently, so if you took offense, I do apologize.

I was trying to point out that one must be able to appeal to some sort of authority to his conclusions beyond his own personal opinion. When we say “the Bible says…” what we are really saying is “I interpret certain passages in the Bible to mean…” The Bible does not objectively teach one unified message that everyone can understand unless they have already been indoctrinated with the various teachings actually mean. If you sit 10 different people down in a room who have never heard of Jesus and give each of them a Bible to read cover to cover and afterward have them give you explanations of what they believe that Christ taught, they will all likely give you different explanations according to their different word views. Everyone brings with them a particular interpretation when reading the Bible, and because of this, we can’t pretend that the Bible itself just teaches authoritatively and anyone that disagrees with our interpretations is automatically wrong because they disagree with “what the Bible clearly says.” Again, you will find the most sincere and scholarly believers in Christ in every denomination that claim their interpretations are guided by the Holy Spirit and who will disagree on the most fundamental of issues such as the ones we’re discussing. Without an authority to appeal to, we cannot know our conclusions are correct because there’s no one to settle matters of dispute.

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.

I assure you there’s no hate-fest on my part. Only a love and zeal for the truth. Regarding whether you will be going to hell, that’s not something I can judge. But to be clear, if anyone is found to be personally guilty for not entering Christ’s Catholic Church, then he cannot be saved. The Church has taught that from the beginning and still clearly teaches that in her current catechism. We initially enter the Church through baptism; we forfeit our position of grace through mortal sin or through willful adherence to heresy or schism; and we return through having true contrition and proper confession.

 

[una_fides]

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.

Honestly, I don’t find the argumentation here very convincing at all. It seems that you are interpreting the passages to fit your preconceived beliefs concerning predestination, etc. I admit that I interpret them according to Catholic teachings, for which I cite not only modern people living 1500-2000 years later, but I can also cite the early fathers who were instructed by the apostles who interpreted the Scriptures the same way. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere because you are still interpreting “in Christ” in this passage to mean someone who has never actually be placed in Christ despite the passage saying that the person was in Christ, not producing fruit, and then would be taken away from the vine.

I’m also curious how you interpret this passage that was cited earlier? If the Scriptures are clear, then there should be no need to consult other theologians who agree with other doctrines you profess. It should be enough to read the passage and explain it in the context, correct? Nevertheless, to help, I cited Augustine’s explanation of that passage in the next post here. Since Calvin claimed Augustine agreed with him on the predestination issue, I figure you would feel comfortable consulting this holy man of God on this matter.

 

[jcrichton]

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!

I understand your point… the problem is that too many times if Catholics do not engage these sort of debates (yes, even when the poster refuses to listen to Scriptures) they continue to post their arguments confusing the novice and any visitor that may not be aware that they are being mislead… I still meet a person or two who believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ (never mind that they cannot name one Pope specifically, if that were true), that the Church some how silenced the Holy Spirit for nearly 1500 years, that the Church was the agent of darkness in the “Dark Ages” (never mind that Monks and Nuns transcribe everything by hand most, if not all, of the texts from antiquity… and never mind that it was the Church that instituted the educational system as we know it in moder times…), that the Pope uses gold utencils and that the Vatican has accumulated enough wealth to feed all of the poor in the whole world… and that is on the not so negative side of their rants!

We must correct the errors… with loads of patience and humility… without making their limitations the target for agression; we must pray that the Holy Spirit enlighten their hearts and minds so that they may seek the Body of Christ in an effort to build it up not tear it down or usurp it!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[TheWhoFreak]

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.

Quite correct actually! Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church, thus meaning that the Church would be infallible. Now, Jesus is NOT talking about some spiritual fellowship of believers or whatnot. He is speaking about a real, physical Church, which is the Catholic Church. We know this is true because:

1. The True Church would only have only one denomination, the Holy Catholic Church has only one denomination, while the Protestant churches are over 30,000 denominations.
2. The True Church must teach complete Divine Truth. We know that NO Protestant church can contain the fullness of Divine Truth because
   ----------------- a) They lack Sacred Tradition and a valid Priesthood
   ----------------- b) They lack full communion with the Holy Catholic Church
3. The True Church would have been established fairly recently after Jesus left the Apostles. None of the Protestant churches were established untill around 1500 years after Jesus died. This, and that it is highly unlikely that God would allow His True Church to continue in error for so long is another point against the Protestant churches and a point for the Catholic Church.
4. The True Church would lead its faithful to the Truth. The Holy Catholic Church is totally unified in its beliefs, while there are over 30,000 different sects of Protestantism

PEPCIS, I could go on and on. The Catholic Church is the True Church of God whether you like it or not

 

[jcrichton]

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.

I now understand your problem… you look at Scriptures with those special glasses ("…did it my way…"); here’s the problem, Jesus did not state, anywhere in Scriptures, 'fola fide" is all you need… quite the contrary (read, very slowly, St. John 15:1-10)… now, if you truly want to know about faith check this out:

11 Now it happened that on the way to Jerusalem he was travelling in the borderlands of Samaria and Galilee. 12 As he entered one of the villages, ten men suffering from a virulent skin-disease came to meet him. They stood some way off 13 and called to him, ‘Jesus! Master! Take pity on us.’ 14 When he saw them he said, ‘Go and show yourselves to the priests.’ Now as they were going away they were cleansed. 15 Finding himself cured, one of them turned back praising God at the top of his voice 16 and threw himself prostrate at the feet of Jesus and thanked him. The man was a Samaritan. 17 This led Jesus to say, ‘Were not all ten made clean? The other nine, where are they? 18 It seems that no one has come back to give praise to God, except this foreigner.’ 19 And he said to the man, 'Stand up and go on your way. Your faith has saved you.' (St. Luke 17:11-19)

Here we find Jesus quoting sola fide… oh wait, that’s what the other nine lepers had… they had faith that all they needed to do was be seen by priests so that they could regain their regular life–they got it!

Yet, it was the Samaritan the only person that return praising God for the gift of temporal health–Jesus calls to attention the fact that he returned praising God (not just demonstrated faith) and the fact that the other nine men were Jews (had the “faith” to the One True God) but it took the Samaritan (considered uncleaned by Yahweh God’s people) to exercise Faith through his praising of Yahweh God’s Mercy and Omnipotence!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

[/INDENT]…but I thought that St. Paul meant ‘sola fide,’ where do you suppose he’s getting all this other stuff like Love and Hope?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

By simple vocabulary I mean definition… you subscribe to what I call a confusious state (play on confusion and that Chinese philosopher):

You continue to spause yourself with defining what the Church Teaches while claiming to know that the Holy Spirit guides you to true knowledge while simultaneously rejecting every single post that corrects your errors, including those that demonstrate through various citing of the Holy Scriptures that you are incorrect!

You cannot accept that the Church got the idea that faith alone does not save even though the Holy Scriptures continue to state that it takes more than “faith” to be save: “not all who call me Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but he who obeys my Father;” “I am the vine you are the branches abide in me; without me you are nothing!”

Finally, listen to St. Paul’s declaration about sola fide:

Philippians 2:12
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

Yeah… that St. Paul, always talking about sola fide–oh, wait… he suggest that Believers must obey not only God but the Church (as he represents the Apostles) and that they must continue on their path to Salvation in an active role not just a passive thought/belief!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

I think that you are using that confusious dictionary again–Graces does not equate to “product of faith.” Grace is God’s Gift; there’s nothing to be done to attain Grace and God cannot be compelled to endow anyone with Grace:

…and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. (1 Corinthians 12:11)

God toy-thing to be controlled or channeled:

9To some who were confident of their own righteousness… 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector… 13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (St. Luke 18:9-14)

21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (St. Matthew 7:21-23)

Both of these passages speak against self-actualization; in both cases the “Believers” confided not in God but in the “faith” that they possessed; they translated knowledge of God to automatic Salvation; they relied on “sola fide” to carry them through–demons know God and are able to work what to us is miraculous, but they still refuse to subject their wills to God’s Will!

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.

But this does not mean Salvation!:

8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 St. John 1:8-9)

Again, you are confused… it is not that we have something but that we gain Grace through fellowship!

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.

You are making my argument: fellowship/abiding in Christ: Obeying Christ is what brings us Grace which produces works–this by no means translates to “faith alone!”

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.

But it is the Holy Spirit not the Believer that produces the works; faith alone, as St. Paul states, can be without merit if it does not accompany Love, here’s the breakdown:

1 St. John 4:12
…but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

1 St. John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

1 St. John 4:20
If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

1 St. John 4:21
And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

1 St. John 5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

1 St. John 5:2
This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

1 St. John 5:3
This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

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.

True, Salvation is a free Gift; but not all are Saved just becuase it is free:

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. (St. John 3:19-20)

Those who refuse to abide in Christ cannot but gain free condemnation!

Maran atha!

Angel