Most Protestants believe in SOLA FIDE but what about........???

[guanophore]

Have you considered the words of Jesus in regards to being born again? Without a rebirth, we remain children of the darkness and have a dead demonic faith.

Indeed! Catholics hold to the Apostolic Teaching that we are born from above by water and Spirit in baptism. All who have been validly baptized have been buried with Him in death. Baptism washes away our sins, and transfers us from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Indeed! Catholics hold to the Apostolic Teaching that we are born from above by water and Spirit in baptism. All who have been validly baptized have been buried with Him in death. Baptism washes away our sins, and transfers us from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.

You see, we are closer than you think. I believe the CC also speaks of those who can be born from above without water baptism, correct? I know there are exceptions. I also believe the CC acknowledges Protestant baptism too. MY bigger point, there is no such things as seperated brothers, half brothers, or step brothers. We are either united to Christ or still united to Adam. There is no middle status.

 

[guanophore]

 Catholic doctrine is beneficial to the extent that it points to Jesus Christ for daily living and eternal life.

Exactly! At the pointing value is equal to that of Scripture, according to the Apostles.

You might be surprised what Pope Benedict has to say about SF (faith alone). ;) The answer is not Apostolic Tradition, nor Scripture alone... the answer is Jesus Christ as He reveals Himself through the written Word of God.

I hope you are not saying that “the answer” you state here is in agreement with what Pope Benedict says.

Of course the answer is Jesus Christ, but He reveals Himself equally in the Church, and in the Written Word. this is the part of the gospel that our separated brethren have lost.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Exactly! At the pointing value is equal to that of Scripture, according to the Apostles.

I hope you are not saying that “the answer” you state here is in agreement with what Pope Benedict says.

Of course the answer is Jesus Christ, but He reveals Himself equally in the Church, and in the Written Word. this is the part of the gospel that our separated brethren have lost.

The body of Christ is not as splintered in the way you appear to make it in your posts. I encourage you to read about ECT 1 and ECT II. I may not completely agree with it, but I agree with the spirit of unity that those Christians present in those two documents. It is not a matter of being Catholic or Protestant. For our Christian communities are not the answer, yet our Christian communities are valuable. Here is where I am at in this Christian life:

Romans 8

Life in the Spirit

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

 

[guanophore]

I’m sure it’s not wise to play Peter against Paul because Paul wrote 1/2 the NT. If you read the two Epistles of Peter, they do not promote good works for justification. You can interpert Peter alone for baptismal regeneration (it’s a strech).

Actually, there is a lot more in Paul’s writings about baptismal regeneration than there is anywhere else. I think for the reason you state - more of his writings are included. I also agree that there is no need to play them against one another (which Benedictus did not do anyway). All of them represent fully the Sacred Tradition (Teaching of Jesus).

 

[guanophore]

Jesus teaches that there are sheeps and goats, wheat and tares in the church.

You are right, of course.

 We are all born spirituality dead.

Such a statement is false, and emanates from Reformed theologies that depart from Apsotolic teaching about the nature of man, the nature of sin, and the nature of grace.

  It's not that God knew them and then later did not know them.

One can become a partaker of His grace, then make himself a stranger again. However, his last state is then worse than the first.

 

[guanophore]

Scripture reveals that some men do not have faith. Scripture reveals that some have a dead faith. However, both groups are still dead in their sins and trespasses, and in enmity with God, and under the wrath of God. They are both in the same group united to Adam and makeup the old humanity. It’s the same with unbelievers who have faith in God in a religion which rejects the Biblical Christ. From my view, Muslims and Hindus have a dead faith which does not come from God.

Your position diverts from Apostolic Teaching on the nature of humanity, and the nature of faith, as well as the nature of grace.

 

[guanophore]

I think you misunderstood what Cinette was saying. She is not saying that we can “work off our debt”. Rather, for those who have been justified by His grace, the proper response it one of complete gratitude and service. It is our spiritural worship to be in complete service to Him. We need to bear fruit that befits repentance.

It's really depressing to read things like this. Do you really think Jesus needs your help? That Him "through whom all things were made" really needs our 'good works' for salvation?

It is not His need it is ours! We need to work out our salvation in fear and trembling BECAUSE God is at work within us to will and to do His good pleasure.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Keep reading to v. 10. We are saved so that we can then engage in the works He has prepared. The grace that saves us is not separated from the grace that produces the good works He has prepared. The works that Cinette is talking about are those that are produced by grace, through faith. These are Holy Works, as opposed to works of the flesh, that come from our ego.

I’ll agree that it isn’t just faith; Baptism is necessary for salvation. But to think that you have to ‘work off your debt to Jesus’ to be saved… it’s an impossible task. But it’s human nature. It’s understandable.

“Work off” is not really the best choice of words. Scripture uses “work out”, which is very different than “work on”.

The words of one of my favorite hymns we used to sing at my Methodist Church come to mind.

" I owed a debt I could not pay’
He paid a debt He did not owe
I needed someone, to wash my sins away
and now I sing a brand new song, Amazing Grace!
Cause Jesus paid the debt that I could never pay."

As Paul said in 1 Cor. 1, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles…"

The message of the cross is one of justification by grace through faith. You may feel like you owe Jesus, and YOU DO. But working it off to save yourself is essentially saying that you don’t trust Christ to save you, that you need to fill in the gaps for Him because He can’t do all the heavy lifting. Should your life demonstrate works in faith? Absolutely! But it is OUT OF FAITH AND LOVE that we do works, not out of a desire to ‘work off our debt.’ To do so is to take away the power of the cross to save.

Cinette is not saying that we work off our debt to be saved. What He gives us is His gift to us. what we give Him is our response. We are called to give our utmost, to His highest.

I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. It is our faith and love that make us conscious of our indebtedness to Him for the greatness of His gift.

 

[guanophore]

That’s why you’re a Catholic and I’m a Reformed catholic. We see things differently. The Catholic view of infant baptismal regeneration drives your understanding of James 2. In my world, regeneration comes before faith in light of John 3.

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html

Such a world view is contrary to the teaching of the Apostles. I agree with you, this is one of the reasons we are “separated brethren”.

Catholics receive their world view from the Apostles. It is called Sacred Tradition, and you are right, it is this framework through which we understand all that is written. Indeed, it does “govern”.

 

[guanophore]

Of course it does.  When you think about it, Catholics, Mormons, and JW's interpert James 2 in similar fashion to refute the biblical view of salvation defined within the 5 solas.

I am not sure about this, but you are right, it is James 2 that reflects the Apostolic Teaching from which the 5 solas represent a departure.

 James 2 is describing a demonic faith that does not work.

I think you are in error about this, 2nd. There is a different kind of faith that the demons have. They know from experience, and they rebel by choice. However, not all human faith is necessarily demonic.

Faith is a function of our human psyche. God built it into our makeup as part of creation. Humans have a choice about where to place their faith. For example, one can put one’s faith in wealth, or power. Often Jesus would say to believers “where is your faith?”. he was not saying that their faith was “demonic”, but that they were misusing /misplacing it.

He also noted to many that “your faith has healed you”. Human faith, of itself, cannot heal or save a person, but if it is mixed with grace it will.

Baptism regenerates a person, whether it is done by a Catholic priest, or anyone else. that is why it is called “the washing of regeneration”.

The spirit is poured out into our hearts at baptism. Indeed, the Catholic faith really does need to reconcile the millions of Catholics who are baptized and yet do not manifest a living faith. This is our work. This is part of the mission of CAF.

 

[guanophore]

I think some of the essential doctrines of the Catholic Faith are not true, leaving you with problems when debating Protestants.

How is this? I don’t seem to have any trouble debating with Protestants.

If you did not think the Apostolic Teaching handed down to us was false, there would be nothing to debate about, and what would I do for entertainment when on CAF?

But we are not saved from the comming day of wrath by having perfect doctrine. We are saved by the person and work of Christ alone, in spite of our Christian communities. The true church that is united to Christ is truly catholic (universal).

I agree that our understanding does not neet to be perfect, but you are creating a false dichotomy again. Jesus is Truth, and there is only One Truth. Therefore to the extent we are in Him we will have perfect Truth. All of us fall short to some extent, because we all know in part. Right Doctrine is in conformity with his Truth. To the extent there is disagreement, then some of us are not “in Him” as fully as we could be.

We are saved by the person and work of Christ alone, in spite of our Christian communities. The true church that is united to Christ is truly catholic (universal).

Such a statement reveals a deficient understanding of the nature of Church. On the contrary, Christ is not “alone” but prepared a Body for Himself. It is THROUGH that Body, and not “in spite of it” that we are saved. This is His purpose for church.

I do see your point, though. Sometimes there is so much corruption (as you have correctly identified - goats, tares) that it does seem like we are saved in spite of it.

 

[guanophore]

Who is having problems? You are the one who is arguing that James is talking about something else when he writes about faith. You are saying that what James really means is… death faith.

I am saying that James wrote exactly what he meant to say. You ask me what the correlation between faith and works is? I answer:

faith apart from works is dead…

You answer… .Well we’ve seen that.

It is not that I have problems discussing this verse with Protestants. It is that you have problems with what the verse says. The problem is that it does not say what the “reformed” doctrine would tell you it should so James must be saying something else. James must be writing about “death faith” even though when you put “death faith” into the verse the verse ceases to have any meaning. I am saying James means exactly what he wrote. Glory to God.

God bless you

I think that 2nd is right about dead faith. However, he says it is two different kinds of faith, and I dont agree with that. I think it is the quality of faith we are talking about . 2nd rightly notes that saving faith is faith that works, faith that obeys, faith that perseveres. This is entirely Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has death faith but does not have works? Can that death faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also death faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have death faith and I have works.” Show me your death faith apart from your works, and I will show you my death faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that** death faith** apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that death faith was active along with his works, and death faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by death faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also death faith apart from works is dead.



God bless you

You are failing to distinuish between faith that works (saving faith) and faith that does not (dead). While I disagree that dead faith is necessarily demonic, it is clear that James is making a distinction between saving faith, and faith that does not save.

A more appropriate renderin might be:

]What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has saving faith but does not have works? Can that *** faith that does not work save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also *** faith that thinks it saves** by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

 

[guanophore]

I care not what the Mormon or JW understanding of James is. I care what James says:

Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Faith apart from works is dead…

God bless

You don’;t seem to realize this, but you are in agreement with 2nd. I think you must not be reading his posts, or you are defensive agains him because he is not Catholic. His understanding of James is Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

There is thousands of Catholics or even millions of Catholics that have a James 2 faith. Because the Catholic Faith teaches baptismal regeneration, you cannot make a separation of those who have a mental assent to the gospel, but have not been born from above by the Spirit.

Of course you can! The separation is that those who do not complete their faith with works are living in mortal sin.

It has nothing to do with when a person is baptized. A person can be bapized as an infant, raised in their faith, then fall away, just as many circumcised Jews did not exercise the faith into which they were circumcised. Or, an adult can have a conversion experience, be baptized, and fall away from their faith. The nature of sin does not change just because a person is regenerated. Sin still separates us from God.

When a person is baptized, that person is born from above according to Catholic theology, even though they will manifest a James 2 faith.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that no baptized Catholics have saving faith?

And those Catholics who are not born from above, will try to produce good works apart from the Spirit, creating artifical plastic fruit of the flesh.

The fact that baptized persons attempt to produce works apart from the Spirit has nothign to do with whether or not they are regenerated. It has to do with being human! As we can see in Rom 7, we struggle against our sin nature throughout our lives. Paul is not suggesting he is not saved!

Salvation is of the Lord, and by the Spirit of God some sinners are being transformed into the image of Christ.

Yes. This is Catholic faith. Except that I would say it is not sinners who are transformed, but saints. We are removed from the Kingdom of darkness, into the Kingdom of light. We are no longer sinners, but set apart by and for God.

The Catholic Faith is very very close to a faith based on personal good works as the cause of your salvation.

I am sure it seems this way, if you have not known any Catholics that demonstrate a living faith.

 

[guanophore]

Hi, 2nd Adam,

You have been flip-flopping on this from seveal directions, now. Why not define your terms (“James 2 faith” does not exist anywhere that I can find). Just spell out what you mean and stick with it. Thanks in advance.

I don’t see that he is flip flopping at all. Although there are two “James 2” types of faith described, it is clear from his context here he is referring to “dead faith” (faith that does not work).

  You apparently think nothing of minimizing the Power of the Holy Spirit. Just who are you to say that God's Spirit has not been given to these little ones? Really? Christ's command is clear to baptize all those in the world - it is truly 'another gospel' to start laying out restrictions.

I don’t think this is a fair assessment at all. I have read a lot of 2nd’s posts, and it seems clear to me that he does not minimize the Power of the HS. It is also understandible that he would conclude that the HS is not at work in those who have supposedly been “regenerated” but are living a life of sin, The fault for this lies squarely at the feet of those Catholics who fail to live their baptismal vows.

From his perspective, if the HS has regenerated someone, they will manifest that state in their actions. Naturally, if someone claims to have been born again from above, yet is still living in their sins, one will suspect that he is not really regenerated.

 The basic problem is I have no idea what you are really talking about. Define your terms and just re-write your sentence so that it makes sense without your own jargon.

This makes a lot of sense. I have been reading posts of Catholics talking past 2nd and I think you are right. Reformed theology has different concepts and different theology.
We must keep in mind that 2nd is probably also not very experienced in translating Reformed theological terms to Latin Catholic terms.

Seriously, you are jumping from one insult to another and failing to clarify anything. You are expected to do better then this. If you are going to criticize, do so in a logical manner with references. No shooting from the hip as we obviously have here.

2nd is making an accurate observation that the vast majority of American Catholics do not live according to the faith they claim to espouse. They think they are on God’s good side, while living in mortal sin. I just talked to one of these Catholics last week, who is living in sin, and said “I try to live a good life”.

 And your reference for this obvious flippant remark is what?

God bless

I don’t find his remark flippant at all. I think he is expressing his point of view that it seems to him, based on what he has observed, that the catholic faith appears to reflect a lack of salvation by grace, through faith.

 

[guanophore]

 I would imagine that Catholic theology teaches that through the sacrament of baptism, the Priest has the power to convert or regenerate infants.

This would be false, 2nd. The Catholic Theology reflects the Apostolic Teaching that it is the Spirit that Regenerates through the water in the “circumcision made without hands”.

Baptism is considered valid when done properly by anyone, even an non-christian, so long as the person intends to do what the Church intends.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is only the HS who can convert and regenerate. We participate and make ourselves available for this in baptism, but it is the Spirit who seals us.

     In Reformed theology, it is the Spirit (John 3) who does the work of regeneration in the heart of man, so he can freely respond with God given faith.

Yes.

the difference is that you believe one is regenerated prior to choosing, and we believe it is a choice. The difference reflects a departure on the part of Reformed theology from Apostolic Teaching.

  It's interesting that Catholic theology does consider infant baptism as the new birth, but IMO, it does not fit in John chapter 3.

I don’t see how it does not fit?

 As a Reformed Christian, I do believe in infant baptism.  I do not believe in infant baptismal regeneration.

John 3

You Must Be Born Again

3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus [1] by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [2] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. [7] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Jesus is talking to an adult, who has reached the age of reason. Adults, because they are capable, must present themselves. If they are incapable, they can be brought to Jesus by those whose faith carries them as in the case of the paralytic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

Long time no see … errrr… read! Now, I am having this ‘vision’ … yes! Your ‘martial arts’ guy at the bottom has suddenly changed - black pants, stripped shirt, bow tie… and a whistle… and what is that I hear… t-w-w-w-w-w-w-t! Was that a ‘call’ on me? Hmmmm… how about one of those ‘instant replays’…just for fun

I don’t see that he is flip flopping at all. Although there are two “James 2” types of faith described, it is clear from his context here he is referring to “dead faith” (faith that does not work). **Seriously, a lot has to do with language and ‘jargon’, if you will. My view is that James 2 is a simply reference to look at what I am doing to spread Christ’s message - not how loud I am praying. The ‘demonic faith’ to me is virtually meaningless as a concept. The devils have a first-hand experience with the punishments of hell and Who put them there - similar to us having a first-hand experience with water being wet. Neither requries ‘faith’ - just a memory if necessary. **

I don’t think this is a fair assessment at all. I have read a lot of 2nd’s posts, and it seems clear to me that he does not minimize the Power of the HS. It is also understandible that he would conclude that the HS is not at work in those who have supposedly been “regenerated” but are living a life of sin, The fault for this lies squarely at the feet of those Catholics who fail to live their baptismal vows. The issue as I appreciated the statement was in relationship to the Baptism of Infants - and how this fails (per 2nd’s view) because the infant is unable to acknowledge and step forward for Christ. The power of Baptism rests with the HS confirming the adopted child into the Family of God - it has nothing to do with proclaiming Christ (as an infant can not do this - but, is rewarded with being in the Family of God by the actions of his parents/guardians/etc.).

From his perspective, if the HS has regenerated someone, they will manifest that state in their actions. Naturally, if someone claims to have been born again from above, yet is still living in their sins, one will suspect that he is not really regenerated. Agreed.

This makes a lot of sense. I have been reading posts of Catholics talking past 2nd and I think you are right. Reformed theology has different concepts and different theology.
We must keep in mind that 2nd is probably also not very experienced in translating Reformed theological terms to Latin Catholic terms. Not to put too fine a point on this … but, I am still waiting for these definitions… maybe a 5 yard penalty for ‘Delay’…

2nd is making an accurate observation that the vast majority of American Catholics do not live according to the faith they claim to espouse. They think they are on God’s good side, while living in mortal sin. **Seriously, if that was his point, I have no argument with that. ** I just talked to one of these Catholics last week, who is living in sin, and said “I try to live a good life”.

I don’t find his remark flippant at all. I think he is expressing his point of view that it seems to him, based on what he has observed, that the catholic faith appears to reflect a lack of salvation by grace, through faith. Well, that is a judgment call… and to be honest, it is difficult to read one’s own posts in a dispassionate manner. So, if everyone is in agreement, I will withdraw and apologize for the ‘flippant’ adjective.

Enjoyed reading your ‘blizzard’ of posts … I hope this means you will be staying with this thread for a while so your future posts will be a bit more timely…

God bless

 

[guanophore]

You see, we are closer than you think. I believe the CC also speaks of those who can be born from above without water baptism, correct?  I know there are exceptions.

Yes. Although being born again of water and Spirit in baptism is normative, God is not constricted in His grace.

I also believe the CC acknowledges Protestant baptism too.

Yes. A valid baptims is a Trinitarian baptism, and since teh Apostles taught “one baptism for the remission of sins” we do not rebaptize anyone. Instead, baptized Christians make a profession of faith, just as they would before baptism, and are “received”.

MY bigger point, there is no such things as seperated brothers, half brothers, or step brothers. We are either united to Christ or still united to Adam. There is no middle status.

Ah, but the reference is not about us being in relation to Christ. It is about being in relation to ONE ANOTHER. We are separated by our conflicts, disagreements, estranged by irreconcilable differences. All of us are united to Him, and thus, are brothers and sisters, but we seem to have quite a bit of sibling rivalry to work out.

 

[2nd_Adam]

This would be false, 2nd. The Catholic Theology reflects the Apostolic Teaching that it is the Spirit that Regenerates through the water in the “circumcision made without hands”.

Baptism is considered valid when done properly by anyone, even an non-christian, so long as the person intends to do what the Church intends.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is only the HS who can convert and regenerate. We participate and make ourselves available for this in baptism, but it is the Spirit who seals us.

Yes.

the difference is that you believe one is regenerated prior to choosing, and we believe it is a choice. The difference reflects a departure on the part of Reformed theology from Apostolic Teaching.

I don’t see how it does not fit?

Jesus is talking to an adult, who has reached the age of reason. Adults, because they are capable, must present themselves. If they are incapable, they can be brought to Jesus by those whose faith carries them as in the case of the paralytic.

Are you saying that official Catholic theology does not make a distinction of who is doing the baptizing in the Triune formula? Can a lay Protestant and Catholic Christians perform the sacrament of baptism?