MERGED: Questions for Catholics on how we got our Bible

[JustaServant]

Hey Makko, where’d you go dude?

 

[Ubenedictus]

First, it was enough of a problem with Eusebius to dispute it. And that is the nature of Luther’s questions about it. Clearly, as luther said, it is part of the canon.
Luther’s contention was NOT that faith alone means faith can be without works. To the contrary, he on various occasions stresses that, while justification is operative apart from works, that doesn’t mean that faith can be without works. A true, saving faith is a faith that works through love.

Name two communions that have direct roots in Lutheranism. Most of the so-called thousands of factions have their roots in Reformed, baptist and anabaptist traditions.

I would not dispute this, and Lutheranism does not. You, here, have things in the proper order. We are saved by faith through grace. One cannot claim a true saving faith without participating in the new obedience.
"There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow." - Luther

And also with you.

Jon

this luther dude is a mystery, he teach faith alone knowing fully well that alone faith is a dead faith. What did this guy really teach? How do u teach faith alone when faith isnt alone. Hmm what a teaching.
Ubenedictus

 

[JonNC]

this luther dude is a mystery, he teach faith alone knowing fully well that alone faith is a dead faith. What did this guy really teach? How do u teach faith alone when faith isnt alone. Hmm what a teaching.
Ubenedictus

One has to understand what the “sola” means. Sola fide only means that we come to justification only by faith, not by works. Justification is operative by grace through faith. But as Galatians tells us, the faith we are talking about is a faith that works through love. So, justification must be followed by sanctification.
The “sola” does not mean we can simply claim faith and not obey His commands.

Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

 

[Christinex5]

Brant Pitre has an amazing explanation to all your questions in a CD through Lighthouse Catholic Media called, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. It goes through the old testament and how, through Jesus, all is fulfilled through the Eucharist. God Bless you,

Christine

 

[Ubenedictus]

Sorry i couldnt reply for some time now, i have been busy.

One has to understand what the “sola” means. Sola fide only means that we come to justification only by faith, not by works.

This is the little problem i have with dr luther he likes words like ‘only’ and ‘alone’. This reveals the difference between the catholic understanding of justification and luthers. While justification happens once and for all in luther theology the catholic church doesnt think so.

Justification is operative by grace through faith. But as Galatians tells us, the faith we are talking about is a faith that works through love. So, justification must be followed by sanctification.
The “sola” does not mean we can simply claim faith and not obey His commands.
Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6

Jon

yeah this sounds alot like trent. It is a pity that most protestant i have met dont think that justifying faith needs a ‘preservative’ called love. Actually what i hear is that justification is by grace alone thru faith alone in christ alone, few think that a living faith is a faith that work in love, and others will say a living faith works in love but the cause of justification is faith alone, love isnt really the cause. Do you mind explaining.
Ubenedictus

 

[packermann]

Now if one were to take just that one verse it would almost seem that is teaching cannabilsm but if you read the versus before that i believe it clarifies it. …now i say that very humbley becuase i am quite ignorant when it come to Catholic Doctrine. I’d appreciate any repsonse on the following verses on cannabilsm.

This cannibalism argument actually was one reason I believed that the Catholic Church is right.

I used to be a Protestant minister. I studied at Trinity Evangelical Divinity in Deerfield, IL. We studied the early Christians being fed to lions by the Romans in 60AD. What I found was weird was that the charge against the Christians was exactly what you are writing. They were accused of being cannibals! The Romans took it literally that the Christians were eating the flesh of the founder of their religion. This seemed to be very weird. Why, I asked, the Christians did not explain to the Romans that they were just eating Jesus symbolically? But I could not find any evidence that any Christian tried to explain it that way.

When I became a Catholic, this then made sense. The reason they never answered the charged of cannibalism is because there was no simple answer. They WERE actually eating the flesh of their Savior. Deep in their hearts they knew it was not quite cannibalism, but they could not express it in words.

Jesus had the same problem in John 6. The disciples said “This is a hard saying. How can we accept it?”. They , too, thought that Jesus was talking of cannibalism. And because of this, most of His disciples left Him. Now, if the disciple misunderstood Jesus, why did Jesus not correct their misunderstanding? He could not correct their misunderstanding because there was no easy way to explain it, because they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He could have qualified it to be only symbolic, but the reason He could not was because it was not just symbolic.

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” Genesis 9:4

“… No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.” Leviticus 17:12

Would God ever command His children to do something He had already forbidden?

But we are no longer under Old Covenant.

The next time you eat steak, check out any red juice that is in that steak. Is that not blood?
So why do so many Protestants eat red steak? Why do they not limit themselves to kosher food, which God commanded to eat in the Old Testament?

Ask any knowledgeable Protestant, and he would answer that we are no longer under the Old Testament but the New Testament. And he would be right. There is no command under the New Testament that forbids us to eat certain foods. In fact, the New Testament asserts we are free from all dietary laws.
*
11 Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man.*
Matthew 15:11

20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.
Col 2

One other thing. The priest told me about the verse in John 6. where it states that it is his body and blood. Are we to take it litterly? What about when He said He was the door in John 10:7

The difference is the reaction of the audience. In John 10, no one took Him literally. In John 6, almost all of His disciples took Him literally, and left Him because of it. If Jesus did not intend to be taken literally, why did He not correct their misunderstanding before they left Him? When I was a minister, I was very careful to clarify my position to the congregation on any doctrine. I would not just have stood by and let them leave the church on a misunderstanding. And yet if Jesus was only talking symbolic in John 6, then why did He did not speak up before they left Him, as I would have? Was I a better teacher than Jesus? If why did not John inject his own commentary here to avoid any future misunderstandings, as he did in other places in his gospel? After all, if most of Jesus’ disciples left Him because this says was hard to accept, why did John not explain it as being only being symbolic to his readers for fear that they would leave too?

 

[JonNC]

Sorry i couldnt reply for some time now, i have been busy. This is the little problem i have with dr luther he likes words like ‘only’ and ‘alone’. This reveals the difference between the catholic understanding of justification and luthers. While justification happens once and for all in luther theology the catholic church doesnt think so.

yeah this sounds alot like trent. It is a pity that most protestant i have met dont think that justifying faith needs a ‘preservative’ called love. Actually what i hear is that justification is by grace alone thru faith alone in christ alone, few think that a living faith is a faith that work in love, and others will say a living faith works in love but the cause of justification is faith alone, love isnt really the cause. Do you mind explaining.
Ubenedictus

Lutherans believe that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
By grace alone - there is no other means of justification than Grace. The very reason for Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection.
Through faith alone - the Apostle Paul makes this clear on serval occasions. Not by works, not by anything we do, but through faith do we come to justification.
In Christ alone - christ tells us this - * I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. *

In all cases, the “sola” is narrow and specific, regarding how these things happen. It is not intended to exclude our participation in sanctification. To receive Baptism, my parents, through faith, brought me to the baptismal font. At confirmation, I confessed my faith with the words of my mouth. When I go to receive absolution or the Eucharist, I am guided by the Spirit to do so, but I could reject them if I choose.

The fact is true, then, that I can choose to reject grace. OTOH, again guided by the Spirit, good works must follow faith. As the Apostle says, faith working through love. That is the kind of faith that is a saving faith.

occasionally reference James Akins’ article linked here:
catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/justification-by-faith-alone-by-james-akin/

He says, in part,

However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith, hope, and charity.” **This does not disagree **with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith alone” if the term “faith” is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.

One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define “faith”; that is, as an unconditional “placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.” The definition Protestants normally give to “faith” is the definition Catholics use for “hope.”

However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

**Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which “works by charity” then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. **The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity
The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant’s idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan “salvation by faith alone” becomes the Catholic slogan “salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).”

Read more: catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/justification-by-faith-alone-by-james-akin/

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

What I found was weird was that the charge against the Christians was exactly what you are writing. They were accused of being cannibals!

I have used this argument before when providing apologia to non-Catholics regarding the Eucharist: the accusation that Christians were cannibals speaks to the fact that the Eucharist was indeed a belief proclaimed by the 1st century Christians.

However, it has been pointed out that the early Christians were also accused of incest. This, clearly, was not true, so perhaps, they argue, the accusation of being “ritualistic cannibals” was also unfounded.

How would you respond?

 

[Ubenedictus]

Lutherans believe that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
By grace alone - there is no other means of justification than Grace. The very reason for Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection.
Through faith alone - the Apostle Paul makes this clear on serval occasions. Not by works, not by anything we do, but through faith do we come to justification.
In Christ alone - christ tells us this - * I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. *

In all cases, the “sola” is narrow and specific, regarding how these things happen. It is not intended to exclude our participation in sanctification. To receive Baptism, my parents, through faith, brought me to the baptismal font. At confirmation, I confessed my faith with the words of my mouth. When I go to receive absolution or the Eucharist, I am guided by the Spirit to do so, but I could reject them if I choose.

The fact is true, then, that I can choose to reject grace. OTOH, again guided by the Spirit, good works must follow faith. As the Apostle says, faith working through love. That is the kind of faith that is a saving faith.

occasionally reference James Akins’ article linked here:
catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/justification-by-faith-alone-by-james-akin/

He says, in part,

Jon

thanks for the explanation, i think pope Benedict gave a similar explanation some years ago. But if i can find 5 protestants who agree it would be a miracle, now seriously i would agree that looking closely the two ‘slogans’ agree but most protestants i have met will totally deny that hope and love is in anyway implied by the slogan ‘faith alone’. A protestant once told me in similar words ‘‘truly love makes faith alive but it would be totally wrong to imply that we are ’ thru faith and love’ because salvation is operative thru faith alone’’. I think i also had a quote from a reformer to support his views. Is your view different?
Ubenedictus

 

[Nicea325]

I have used this argument before when providing apologia to non-Catholics regarding the Eucharist: the accusation that Christians were cannibals speaks to the fact that the Eucharist was indeed a belief proclaimed by the 1st century Christians.

However, it has been pointed out that the early Christians were also accused of incest. This, clearly, was not true, so perhaps, they argue, the accusation of being “ritualistic cannibals” was also unfounded.

How would you respond?

Very true. Even my NKJV Study Bibles reads in reference to Colossians 4:5:

Others harbored suspicions that Christians were really cannibals, who ate and drank the blood and the body of the Lord.

So evidently the early Christians were known to believe and teach the Eucharist was literally Jesus’ Body & Blood.

 

[PRmerger]

Very true. Even my NKJV Study Bibles reads in reference to Colossians 4:5:

Others harbored suspicions that Christians were really cannibals, who ate and drank the blood and the body of the Lord.

So evidently the early Christians were known to believe and teach the Eucharist was literally Jesus’ Body & Blood.

But that’s their point. They (non-Catholics) also point to accusations against Christians for being incestuous.

That accusation was based on a false understanding of Christianity.
Therefore, they also point out, it may have also been a false understanding of Christianity that thought we were literally proclaiming the Eucharist.

How does a Catholic respond to this argument by non-Catholics?

 

[Nicea325]

But that’s their point. They (non-Catholics) also point to accusations against Christians for being incestuous.

That accusation was based on a false understanding of Christianity.
Therefore, they also point out, it may have also been a false understanding of Christianity that thought we were literally proclaiming the Eucharist.

How does a Catholic respond to this argument by non-Catholics?

Easily! Okay,but are the early Christians defending incestuous practices? If so,where are those writings defending it? The literal Eucharist was defended by scores of Christians. What other accusations were they throwing at Christians? They were considered atheists because they would not worship the gods of Rome and Greece. Yes they refused public worship of pagan gods,but did it prove they were atheists without a doubt? Many labeled them as unpatriotic because they would not burn incense before the image of the emperor or pay taxes to Rome.Obviously Jesus answered that challenge to the Jewish leadership about taxes.

They were also were accused of practicing orgies because of their talk of “love feasts” (Jude 12). If the literal understanding of the Eucharist were so false,then does it seem at odds no ECF over the centuries would clear up such a grave misunderstanding? On the contrary,they defend it at all costs with their great writings. With such misrepresentations of Christian belief and practice running rampant in the early years, it was very important for misunderstandings to be dispelled by the virtuous and impeccable lives of Christian believers and their great writings.

 

[PRmerger]

With such misrepresentations of Christian belief and practice running rampant in the early years, it was very important for misunderstandings to be dispelled by the virtuous and impeccable lives of Christian believers and their great writings.

Ah, very good then. So it seems that there were a multitude of accusations thrown around about the early Christians–some true (we did indeed proclaim the Eucharist!) and some false (we did not promote incest ). And the fact that the ECFs defended the dogma of the Eucharist while denying the accusations of incest is our Catholic answer!

 

[Nicea325]

Ah, very good then. So it seems that there were a multitude of accusations thrown around about the early Christians–some true (we did indeed proclaim the Eucharist!) and some false (we did not promote incest ). And the fact that the ECFs defended the dogma of the Eucharist while denying the accusations of incest is our Catholic answer!

Exactly! Trust me, I have heard the same argument by non-Catholics as a means of debunking the literal Eucharist. Okay,then where are the writings defending those accusations as being orthodox Christian beliefs and practices?

 

[JonNC]

=Ubenedictus;9352408]thanks for the explanation, i think pope Benedict gave a similar explanation some years ago. But if i can find 5 protestants who agree it would be a miracle,

I would suspect ( I would hope ) you could find 5 Lutherans right here at CAF who would agree. What other protestants believe is their issue.

now seriously i would agree that looking closely the two ‘slogans’ agree but most protestants i have met will totally deny that hope and love is in anyway implied by the slogan ‘faith alone’.

I would hope not, but again, I speak as a Lutheran, not as a protestant. If there’s a Lutheran here who disagrees, I hope they speak up.

A protestant once told me in similar words ‘‘truly love makes faith alive but it would be totally wrong to imply that we are ’ thru faith and love’ because salvation is operative thru faith alone’’. I think i also had a quote from a reformer to support his views. Is your view different?

Justification is operative through faith alone, which, of course, is by grace. If one comes to justification by grace through faith, then there must be a change in heart, in behavior, a change in the way one treats his fellow man. Christ is clear about this when He says, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
This isn’t a request or recommendation, it is His command, "And the second is like to this;". If the second is like the first, how can one claim saving faith without doing these things?

Jon

 

[kwortham]

Justification is operative through faith alone, which, of course, is by grace.

[BIBLEDRB]Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God[/BIBLEDRB]

No! Can’t see it! Where is the word “alone” or “only” in the verse above?

Now, I did find the words “faith” and “alone” in the same sentence in the protestant KJV. Here is what it says:

“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” James 2:17 (KJV)

 

[JonNC]

=kwortham;9354435][BIBLEDRB]Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God[/BIBLEDRB]

No! Can’t see it! Where is the word “alone” or “only” in the verse above?

Now, I did find the words “faith” and “alone” in the same sentence in the protestant KJV.

Well, first, I don’t often use the KJV, but to your point, from the DRB,
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory.

Where does the writer say something more than faith? Something else other than faith?
But yes, in the next verse he speaks to works,

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

God has prepared good works that we should walk in them. This, for the regenerate, comes following faith.

Here is what it says:

“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” James 2:17

Exactly.

Jon

 

[kwortham]

Well, first, I don’t often use the KJV, but to your point, from the DRB,
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory.

Where does the writer say something more than faith? Something else other than faith?
But yes, in the next verse he speaks to works,

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

God has prepared good works that we should walk in them. This, for the regenerate, comes following faith.

Here is what it says:

Exactly.

Jon

I sincerely took your earlier post as a “by faith only” type. It is good that you are in agreement. Not by faith alone and not by works alone!

 

[JonNC]

I sincerely took your earlier post as a “by faith only” type. It is good that you are in agreement. Not by faith alone and not by works alone!

It depends on what one means by “not by faith alone”. When we say by faith alone, we are talking about justification, which only comes to us by grace through faith, as Paul states. But faith must be active, or it is a dead faith, and a dead faith does not save.

Jon