Ideas for explaining the 'visible church' to non-Catholics?

[onemangang]

Indeed, Protestanism was never united as one from the get-go,but only has managed to divided even more. I personally believe unification under the umbrella of Protestanism is a much more difficult task in comparison to Catholic and Lutheran…for example.

Absolutely

If the Confessional Traditions like Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Episcopalian and others I neglected to mention, were to “Cross the Tiber” so to speak, many non-denominational evangelical communities would just point to The “Roman” Catholic Church is becoming the dreaded One World Religion. They would be, all the more anti-catholic.

It’s hard to get the Confessional Traditions to reach out to the non-denominational crowd, because they are hated, as the Catholic Church is, albeit not as fervently!

 

[Nicea325]

Absolutely

If the Confessional Traditions like Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Episcopalian and others I neglected to mention, were to “Cross the Tiber” so to speak, many non-denominational evangelical communities would just point to The “Roman” Catholic Church is becoming the dreaded One World Religion. They would be, all the more anti-catholic.

It’s hard to get the Confessional Traditions to reach out to the non-denominational crowd, because they are hated, as the Catholic Church is, albeit not as fervently!

Indeed. Those specific churches have closer links to Catholicism,thus it has a leg-up over other non-denom churches.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

There are a lot of people who are saved without sola fide. Are you sure you aren’t confusing grace with faith?

I don’t believe it’s necessary to hold to sola fide to be justified, no. In that sense, yes, it is all of grace. Faith is just the gift given to us whereby we take hold of God’s promise in Christ. We are saved through the merits, passion, and holy suffering of Christ in His word and sacraments, not by what we affirm theologically per se. Now, I do believe any Christian who is justified is justified through faith apart from works, even if they do not consciously accept such a notion.

But Arminius asserted that salvation was only for those who accepted the Gospel. Again, many people are saved without having done so out of invincible ignorance, like unborn babies, children and the mentally infirm.

I am not sure what Arminius taught in that regard. Many evangelicals would hold that people are saved as infants (the “age of accountability” theory), and the mentally infirm.

They did split from both Calvinism and the Calvinist-influenced Puritans but they adopted Arminianism, right?

Yes, through the influence of Wesley, who was a firmly convicted Arminian. So the Methodists, the churches of the holiness movement, and revivalism, are all Arminian. But in almost every other sense aside from predestination and free will, they are Reformed.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

IggyAntiochus;8994525:

Many Protestants do see salvation as a singular event and believe it can not be lost no matter how heinous ones sins are.

No, he didn’t.

Luther said as long as one believes the Savior lived, died and rose from the grave (his famous horse and rider analogy) your sins do not matter. All you need is faith alone, because you have no control over where the rider will take you. If the rider is Christ you will do good works and if the rider is the devil, bad. Still you are saved by faith. This does deny free will, but who cares?

Luther did not believe justification was a one time event. The Lutheran confessions of faith deny that justification is a one time event. They also affirm that justification can be lost via mortal sin, which results in the departure of the Holy Spirit from the Christian, which results in a loss of faith.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Absolutely

If the Confessional Traditions like Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Episcopalian and others I neglected to mention, were to “Cross the Tiber” so to speak, many non-denominational evangelical communities would just point to The “Roman” Catholic Church is becoming the dreaded One World Religion. They would be, all the more anti-catholic.

It’s hard to get the Confessional Traditions to reach out to the non-denominational crowd, because they are hated, as the Catholic Church is, albeit not as fervently!

Confessional Lutherans would reunite with Rome in a heartbeat (at least I would, and I am sure Jon would as well), if the issues which still divide us were resolved. It was never the position of the conservative Reformation to divide from the Western church. We believe Rome did that at the Council of Trent.

 

[grandfather]

I don’t believe it’s necessary to hold to sola fide to be justified, no. In that sense, yes, it is all of grace. Faith is just the gift given to us whereby we take hold of God’s promise in Christ. We are saved through the merits, passion, and holy suffering of Christ in His word and sacraments, not by what we affirm theologically per se. Now, I do believe any Christian who is justified is justified through faith apart from works, even if they do not consciously accept such a notion.

I have heard this phrase “take hold of God’s promise in Christ” often, mainly on Protestant radio. It seems to have caught on and become popular. I am not sure what it means, but it must really resonate in those circles. What does this mean to you?

Does it simply mean believe the promises God made? Have faith that they are true?

Did you really mean or do you really believe that Christ suffers in word and sacrament?

Don’t you think that the theology people affirm, the faith they profess, their theology, if it is true, should align with the reality of salvation?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t believe it’s necessary to hold to sola fide to be justified, no. In that sense, yes, it is all of grace. Faith is just the gift given to us whereby we take hold of God’s promise in Christ. We are saved through the merits, passion, and holy suffering of Christ in His word and sacraments, not by what we affirm theologically per se. Now, I do believe any Christian who is justified is justified through faith apart from works, even if they do not consciously accept such a notion.

That immediately raises the question of what happens to infants and the mentally infirm, which is why you continue…

I am not sure what Arminius taught in that regard. Many evangelicals would hold that people are saved as infants (the “age of accountability” theory), and the mentally infirm.

The problem is that evangelicals also hold to sola scriptura, the age of accountability is nowhere found in the Bible, and Romans 3:23 (“ALL have sinned”) and Psalm 91 (“in sin did my mother conceive me”) therefore trump the tradition of men that is the age of accountability. You can either throw out the baby with the bathwater, or throw out the sola scriptura, but you can’t have them both. Detailed explanation here.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I have heard this phrase “take hold of God’s promise in Christ” often, mainly on Protestant radio. It seems to have caught on and become popular. I am not sure what it means, but it must really resonate in those circles. What does this mean to you?

Does it simply mean believe the promises God made? Have faith that they are true?

Yes. Faith that they are true in the sense that one bases his or her standing before God upon His promises in to us in the gospel.

Did you really mean or do you really believe that Christ suffers in word and sacrament?

No. Sorry if that didn’t come across right. I meant that we partake of His merits, suffering, resurrection, etc, through the sacraments.

Don’t you think that the theology people affirm, the faith they profess, their theology, if it is true, should align with the reality of salvation?

Generally. But salvation doesn’t come through having every i dotted and t crossed. That is preferable, and it is the goal of the church to teach doctrine which is faithful to the teaching of Christ and His apostles. But we are not justified upon the grounds of absolutely correct doctrine in every aspect. The Apostle John wrote that his gospel was for the purposes of believing that Jesus is the Christ, that we might have life in His name. The gospel of John does not teach every part of Christian doctrine.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

That immediately raises the question of what happens to infants and the mentally infirm, which is why you continue…

If infants and the mentally infirm are not baptized, we cannot say what happens to them in death. We only rely on the fact that the Lord of heaven and earth will do what is just.

The problem is that evangelicals also hold to sola scriptura, the age of accountability is nowhere found in the Bible, and Romans 3:23 (“ALL have sinned”) and Psalm 91 (“in sin did my mother conceive me”) therefore trump the tradition of men that is the age of accountability. You can either throw out the baby with the bathwater, or throw out the sola scriptura, but you can’t have them both. Detailed explanation here.

I agree. Which is why we baptize them.

 

[Cat_Herder]

If infants and the mentally infirm are not baptized, we cannot say what happens to them in death. We only rely on the fact that the Lord of heaven and earth will do what is just.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Are the infants and the mentally infirm part of “all men” or not?

I agree. Which is why we baptize them.

What does baptism have to do with sola fide?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Are the infants and the mentally infirm part of “all men” or not?

Yes. What God chooses to do with them in death is His prerogative. I just remain silent on the matter. However, what we can do, if they are baptized, is say that they are God’s adopted sons and daughters, holy in His sight. Because that’s what Scripture says about baptism.

What does baptism have to do with sola fide?

Everything! But more directly to your point, since Scripture does deny any age of accountability, other than accountability beginning with conception, is why we baptize infants. Because they need salvation, and baptism gives salvation.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Everything! But more directly to your point, since Scripture does deny any age of accountability, other than accountability beginning with conception, is why we baptize infants. Because they need salvation, and baptism gives salvation.

Yes, but baptism is not faith. Baptism is a means of grace.

So what saves? Faith or grace? Since it is grace that actually saves, then how can you say “sola fide” meaning faith alone, since faith without grace cannot save? If faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit that comes after grace, then why look to faith rather than to grace as the indicator of salvation?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Yes, but baptism is not faith. Baptism is a means of grace.

Correct…it imparts the gift of faith, through the grace of baptism.

So what saves? Faith or grace? Since it is grace that actually saves, then how can you say “sola fide” meaning faith alone, since faith without grace cannot save? If faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit that comes after grace, then why look to faith rather than to grace as the indicator of salvation?

Grace saves. The alone in faith alone refers to the fact that faith is the spiritual gift that unites us to the promises of the gospels. The alone instrument, as it were. What makes you think I look to faith as opposed to grace?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Correct…it imparts the gift of faith, through the grace of baptism.

A two year old baby does not express faith, he expresses goo goo ga ga. Does that mean he’s not saved? (It does no good to appeal to a “working faith” because two year olds generally don’t do good works, they steal your cookies and break your dishes.)

Grace saves. The alone in faith alone refers to the fact that faith is the spiritual gift that unites us to the promises of the gospels. The alone instrument, as it were. What makes you think I look to faith as opposed to grace?

If the promise of the Gospel is salvation, and salvation is by grace alone, then isn’t it grace rather than faith that unites to the promise?

Keep working on untangling the knot. I’ve been there, so I know it’s a hard one to figure out when you have had years of preachers talking all about faith and grace as if they were the same thing, but eventually you’ll understand.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

A two year old baby does not express faith, he expresses goo goo ga ga. Does that mean he’s not saved? (It does no good to appeal to a “working faith” because two year olds generally don’t do good works, they steal your cookies and break your dishes.)

LoL…but baptism still grants them the gift of faith, even if they can’t express or act upon it.

It’s not knotty. Yes, grace is the reason we have faith, but faith is what unites us to Christ. In order to receive a promise, you have to accept it. Grace gives us the gift, but it is still us doing the believing, through that gift.

[/QUOTE]

 

[onemangang]

Faith and Baptism
Catechism of the Catholic Church

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.[54] But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!”

1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents’ help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.[55] Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).[56] The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.

 

[Cat_Herder]

LoL…but baptism still grants them the gift of faith, even if they can’t express or act upon it.

Why then do so many baptized babies, sadly, leave the Faith?

It’s not knotty. Yes, grace is the reason we have faith, but faith is what unites us to Christ. In order to receive a promise, you have to accept it. Grace gives us the gift, but it is still us doing the believing, through that gift.

If faith is the most important thing, why is it that Paul says that faith will pass away, but love will remain?

 

[grandfather]

Yes. Faith that they are true in the sense that one bases his or her standing before God upon His promises in to us in the gospel.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Why then do so many baptized babies, sadly, leave the Faith?

Unbelief is a mystery, to be sure. But we know that faith can be given up, rejected, and the Spirit resisted.

If faith is the most important thing, why is it that Paul says that faith will pass away, but love will remain?

Faith is not the most important thing, not even in this life. That it alone is the instrument whereby we are united to Christ doesn’t make it greater. Faith will pass away because in the new heavens and new earth, faith will not be necessary, since we will see Christ face to face. Love, however, is eternal.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

IggyAntiochus;8998192:

I think the term “standing before God”, means saved. I think you are saying that if you believe the promises of Christ you can also believe you are in good standing, saved. I am saved if I believe I am saved. Is that correct?

No. I am justified if I believe that Christ’s life, death, and resurrection has justified me.

Partake of His merits is also terminology that is unclear, at least to me. Jesus said we can do nothing without Him. My understanding of that is the converse is implicitly true. With Him we can do something. By His grace we become capable of doing something. With Him we do not act alone, but our actions or works are done with Him and therevy are meritorious. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Yes. Other than that our works are not meritorious for our justification. Will they be rewarded? Yes.

I think that it is the duty or responsibility of the Church to faithfully teach the doctrine she has received from Christ and continues to be protected in by the Holy Spirit. The goal of the Church is Christ’s goal, the salvation of souls. The teaching of doctrine or proclamation of truth is a means not a goal or end. The end is the salvation of souls. Does that sound right to you?

Yes.

We are justified by grace alone. Nevertheless, knowing truth is essential. If we believe false doctrine in some area sooner or later when an issue relevant to that particular doctrine is encountered we go down the wrong path. The deposit of faith, the body of doctrinal knowledge is kind of like a computer program. We make choices in life in spiritual matters informed by truths of the faith, doctrine. A computer can be operating perfectly, but if there is a glitch in the program, when the glitch is encountered the system breaks and can not function. Theology is like that. If there is an error in our theology somewhere things will go well for us spiritually, until we confront a situation where we need the spiritual knowledge of how to deal with it.

All of this is very true.

One of the promises of Jesus that you base your standing before God on, is to lead His Church into ALL truth, for all time.

And He has. In as much as is necessary for faith, doctrine, good works, and perseverance in the faith

This means the Church can never believe that which is false in any age. This means we can know truth in matters of doctrine, perfectly.

Perfectly would be an overstatement.

I thnk maybe your struggle is that you may think you personally are not responsible for figuring out every doctrinal matter. You will not be judged if you are wrong about this or that. This is certainly true. It is not up to you or me to figure out doctrine. The process does not work that way. Jesus promised to lead His Church into all truth. He did not promise to lead all Christians individually. We learn truth from His Church.

I don’t disagree. But I do disagree that the word Church necessarily only refers to the hierarchy of it.