Problems with Protestantism

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam:

The ONLY reason I raised the homosexuality issue was to demonstrate HOW a Church gets around to practicing “Christless Christianity”.

There are dozens of other examples of modern protestant churches IGNORING sinful behaviour simply because the “world” has come to accept it as “normal”. That is clearly UNCHRISTIAN. Why? Because a DENIAL of SIN leads us to DENY the NEED for CHRIST to redeem us.

Before you can partake of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, you must first examine your conscience in the light of the scriptures, sacred tradition and the teachings of the Church fathers… then REPENT and CONFESS your sin… and THEN partake of the Blessed Sacrament. This was the Christian way from the very beginning.

ANY other way to God is CHRISTLESS.

"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:8-10)

I really cannot make this thought any plainer. Hope you see it now, brother.

We can take this to the topic of sin. Let’s define sin and the righteous requirement of the law. Do you mind sharing the Catholic view of sin? There is a tension between legalism and antinomianism which we can error in both directions.

 

[SteveGC]

I acknowledge that there are problems with many modern day American churches which could have Protestant roots. However, not of all these churches are rooted in the Protestant Reformation (doctrine and life). Some American Churches actually practice a form of Christless Christianity. Is the answer to these problems in contemporary Protestantism simply a return to the Catholic Church? Maybe some of the same problems found in many modern American churches are the same problems found in the Catholic Church… for there is diversity in the various Catholic churches too. I like to hear your thoughts as Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Anglican, etc).

A return to the Catholic Church is indeed the answer to many of the problems of modern Christianity, not merely in America, and not merely the problem of “Christless Christianity” that may or may not be going on in other churches, but rather the more prevalent problem of disunity of the faithful, and a rejection of Christ’s true church on earth.

We must be careful not to diminish the critical importance of having this singular, authentic Christ-inspired Church on earth, which I know many people deny anyway. Nevertheless, we inevitably wind up doing this when we formulate judgments about churches based on the behaviors of its members, or looking at disqualifying some churches based on a presumption that they practice a “form of Christless Christianity”. The Catholic Church is completely immune to Christless Christianity, despite the fact that some of its members may behave in a manner that is not Christo-centric. She’s immune because she is the one built by Him.

There’s an important distinction to understand…Christ’s authentic Church on earth is not found by looking for the one who merely preaches Christ crucified…because all but perhaps a few meet that criteria. We also don’t find it by looking for the one whose members are behaving in the most Christo-centric manner. No, the authentic Church is found by looking for the Church which is a full maturation of the same Church which began in its infancy with the Apostles at the helm, the one whose leaders are divinely anointed in succession from those same Apostles, who themselves were divinely anointed with the Spirit from Christ Himself. When we find that Church, we know it will not be Christless, it WILL preach Him crucified, and it will be the one in possession of the fullness of His Truth.

Perhaps that’s not the focus you intended for this thread, so my apologies in advance…but I believe my reply does address the title of your thread and your original post.

Blessings.

 

[2nd_Adam]

A return to the Catholic Church is indeed the answer to many of the problems of modern Christianity, not merely in America, and not merely the problem of “Christless Christianity” that may or may not be going on in other churches, but rather the more prevalent problem of disunity of the faithful, and a rejection of Christ’s true church on earth.

We must be careful not to diminish the critical importance of having this singular, authentic Christ-inspired Church on earth, which I know many people deny anyway. Nevertheless, we inevitably wind up doing this when we formulate judgments about churches based on the behaviors of its members, or looking at disqualifying some churches based on a presumption that they practice a “form of Christless Christianity”. The Catholic Church is completely immune to Christless Christianity, despite the fact that some of its members may behave in a manner that is not Christo-centric. She’s immune because she is the one built by Him.

There’s an important distinction to understand…Christ’s authentic Church on earth is not found by looking for the one who merely preaches Christ crucified…because all but perhaps a few meet that criteria. We also don’t find it by looking for the one whose members are behaving in the most Christo-centric manner. No, the authentic Church is found by looking for the Church which is a full maturation of the same Church which began in its infancy with the Apostles at the helm, the one whose leaders are divinely anointed in succession from those same Apostles, who themselves were divinely anointed with the Spirit from Christ Himself. When we find that Church, we know it will not be Christless, it WILL preach Him crucified, and it will be the one in possession of the fullness of His Truth.

Perhaps that’s not the focus you intended for this thread, so my apologies in advance…but I believe my reply does address the title of your thread and your original post.

Blessings.

That is a good answer, so thank you for sharing. So, what is the general message of the Catholic Church which makes it immune to Christless Christianity? Please share the official Catholic teaching about Christ and Him crucified. As a Protestant, I have read parts of the Catholic Catechism in regards to Islam and Jews who do not believe that Jesus is the Christ; therefore, as a Protestant… it seems explicit faith in Christ is not required to enter Heaven according to the Catholic Catechism. That to me seems to fit into a Christless Christianity doctrinal position.

 

[SteveGC]

That is a good answer, so thank you for sharing. So, what is the general message of the Catholic Church which makes it immune to Christless Christianity? Please share the official Catholic teaching about Christ and Him crucified. As a Protestant, I have read parts of the Catholic Catechism in regards to Islam and Jews who do not believe that Jesus is the Christ; therefore, as a Protestant… it seems explicit faith in Christ is not required to enter Heaven according to the Catholic Catechism. That to me seems to fit into a Christless Christianity doctrinal position.

I do suppose it does depend on the precise meanings you are using for your phrase “Christless”. If it means that Christ Himself is not a significant theme of a particular church, then the Catholic Church, being (I believe) the one true Church He Himself instituted and sent the Spirit to guide unto all Truth, is immune to this. She cannot - by virtue of that divine appointment - deny the central role of Christ, nor can She formally decree that something other than He is more central to our faith. She cannot because the Spirit will not allow it, not because the Church has the most faithful people within it - very faithful that many of them indeed are.

In terms of Islam and Judaism, you’ll have to point me toward any documentation you are concerned about regarding them. Suffice it to say that the Church, outside of it’s core teaching of the salvation through Jesus Christ, does continue to clarify its historical position on the salvation of those who do not know Christ. From the CCC:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

This is not an expression or declaration that explicit faith in Christ is unnecessary…rather it is an acknowledgement that implicit faith in Christ for those ignorantly unaware of the Gospel throughout their entire lives can (not necessarily will) ultimately save them. For those who become aware of the Gospel, this explicit faith in Christ is indeed required. This explicit faith, mind you, also does not guarantee heaven. That issue delves into “faith alone” concepts which I’m sure you’d rather not get into here.

Blessings.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I do suppose it does depend on the precise meanings you are using for your phrase “Christless”. If it means that Christ Himself is not a significant theme of a particular church, then the Catholic Church, being (I believe) the one true Church He Himself instituted and sent the Spirit to guide unto all Truth, is immune to this. She cannot - by virtue of that divine appointment - deny the central role of Christ, nor can She formally decree that something other than He is more central to our faith. She cannot because the Spirit will not allow it, not because the Church has the most faithful people within it - very faithful that many of them indeed are.

In terms of Islam and Judaism, you’ll have to point me toward any documentation you are concerned about regarding them. Suffice it to say that the Church, outside of it’s core teaching of the salvation through Jesus Christ, does continue to clarify its historical position on the salvation of those who do not know Christ. From the CCC:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

This is not an expression or declaration that explicit faith in Christ is unnecessary…rather it is an acknowledgement that implicit faith in Christ for those ignorantly unaware of the Gospel throughout their entire lives can (not necessarily will) ultimately save them. For those who become aware of the Gospel, this explicit faith in Christ is indeed required. This explicit faith, mind you, also does not guarantee heaven. That issue delves into “faith alone” concepts which I’m sure you’d rather not get into here.

Blessings.

I know many Protestants who do not adhere to the doctrinal distinctives of the Protestant Reformation and believe that you can be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ. Many will say that your are judge according to the light that you have apart from special revelation (Christ and Him crucified). But when you look at Romans 1 and 2, the light of general revelation and conscience condemns us universally as individuals. Since we agree in original sin, then apart from Christ we are all lost and eternally condemned as descendants of Adam (Rom 5). It seems the Catholic Church holds a similar position that a peson can be reconciled to God apart from hearing and receivng the gospel. I personally cannot understand this concept, since if a proclamation of the gospel (Christ and Him crucified) is not necessary revelation to be saved or reconciled to God, then the good news (gospel) turns into an accountable bad news. People are condemned by rejection of Jesus Christ as compared to already being condemned before hearing the good news of Jesus Christ. The gospel is always good news about God rescuing sinners from their already condemned condition. John chapter 3 is a solid chapter to study what I am saying.

Here is a portion of the Catechism on Muslims. It’s hard to believe that this has always been the historic Catholic position in regards to Muslims.

Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 3, SubSection 3, Heading 4

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” 330

I can be interpreted as a Christless Christianity position since the faith of Abraham is the gospel about the coming redeemer. Even Job knew that his redeemer lived.

Galatians 3:8
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

Here appears to be another applicable scripture between Christians (children of promise) and Muslims:

Example of Hagar and Sarah

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; [5] she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28 Now you, [6] brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
Gal 4

 

[SteveGC]

I know many Protestants who do not adhere to the doctrinal distinctives of the Protestant Reformation and believe that you can be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ. Many will say that your are judge according to the light that you have apart from special revelation (Christ and Him crucified). But when you look at Romans 1 and 2, the light of general revelation and conscience condemns us universally as individuals. Since we agree in original sin, then apart from Christ we are all lost and eternally condemned as descendants of Adam (Rom 5). It seems the Catholic Church holds a similar position that a peson can be reconciled to God apart from hearing and receivng the gospel. I personally cannot understand this concept, since if a proclamation of the gospel (Christ and Him crucified) is not necessary revelation to be saved or reconciled to God, then the good news (gospel) turns into an accountable bad news. People are condemned by rejection of Jesus Christ as compared to already being condemned before hearing the good news of Jesus Christ. The gospel is always good news about God rescuing sinners from their already condemned condition. John chapter 3 is a solid chapter to study what I am saying.

Here is a portion of the Catechism on Muslims. It’s hard to believe that this has always been the historic Catholic position in regards to Muslims.

Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 3, SubSection 3, Heading 4

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “***The plan of salvation ***also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” 330

I can be interpreted as a Christless Christianity position since the faith of Abraham is the gospel about the coming redeemer. Even Job knew that his redeemer lived.

I bolded a key phrase in the CCC you quoted. Note that this does not say merely “salvation also includes”, but says “the plan of salvation also includes…”

this is a subtle but critical distinction in the Church’s teaching of various people’s relationship to Christ, the Church, and the Gospel message. Being included in the plan does not have the same meaning as presently possessing the means of salvation. Take a few minutes and read this for clarification. Click here.

Blessings.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I bolded a key phrase in the CCC you quoted. Note that this does not say merely “salvation also includes”, but says “the plan of salvation also includes…”

this is a subtle but critical distinction in the Church’s teaching of various people’s relationship to Christ, the Church, and the Gospel message. Being included in the plan does not have the same meaning as presently possessing the means of salvation. Take a few minutes and read this for clarification. Click here.

Blessings.

Okay, please explain the subtle difference to me. Being included in the plan of redemption, but not actually redeemed???

 

[SteveGC]

Okay, please explain the subtle difference to me. Being included in the plan of redemption, but not actually redeemed???

I have a plan to go reconcile with my friend this summer, as we have fallen away from each other due to his rejection of me as a person.

Does this mean that, presently, my friend has been reconciled to me? Does it mean that my friend will undoubtedly be reconciled to me?

No. It just means that my intention, my will, is to reconcile with my friend. The pivotal point is that it is largely dependent on how precisely my friend responds to my reconciliation attempts.

That’s the difference. It’s not the best analogy I’m sure. But the idea is that God, while being sovereign and omnipotent, and while desiring the salvation of all, also perpetually allows our free will to either accept Him, or reject Him. And so a Muslim, desired by God to be saved, and included in God’s supreme plan to offer him this salvation, is not presently saved in his current state of belief, assuming he is not invincibly ignorant (through no fault of his own) of that means of salvation.
CCC 306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

I think we have to remember that God’s plan does not necessarily come to be without our ascent, without our cooperation with Him.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I have a plan to go reconcile with my friend this summer, as we have fallen away from each other due to his rejection of me as a person.

Does this mean that, presently, my friend has been reconciled to me? Does it mean that my friend will undoubtedly be reconciled to me?

No. It just means that my intention, my will, is to reconcile with my friend. The pivotal point is that it is largely dependent on how precisely my friend responds to my reconciliation attempts.

That’s the difference. It’s not the best analogy I’m sure. But the idea is that God, while being sovereign and omnipotent, and while desiring the salvation of all, also perpetually allows our free will to either accept Him, or reject Him. And so a Muslim, desired by God to be saved, and included in God’s supreme plan to offer him this salvation, is not presently saved in his current state of belief, assuming he is not invincibly ignorant (through no fault of his own) of that means of salvation.
CCC 306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

I think we have to remember that God’s plan does not necessarily come to be without our ascent, without our cooperation with Him.

Do you believe the Muslim God is the same God as the Christian God?

 

[SteveGC]

Do you believe the Muslim God is the same God as the Christian God?

Yes, I do.

Their denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ is tragic, flawed, and renders Islam as ultimately a false religion. However, as Dr. Peter Kreeft (a renowned Catholic author) has stated (and I share this belief): “since the Muslims learned who God was from the very same sources that we did, the Jews, it is the same God. The attributes of Allah in the Koran and the attributes of God in both the Old and New Testament are identical. So I see no reason for doubting the claim that a Muslim, like a Jew, or a sincere but misled secularist seeking God, is - in his heart of hearts - loving, seeking and following the same God”.

Important distinction here is that we’re talking about the defined attributes, as opposed to the translation or interpretation of God’s will, or His commands to those in submission to Him. Those latter things are in considerable opposition, but the characteristics and nature of God is still the same.

 

[SteveGC]

Just wanted to also add this…

The Second Vatican Council taught that Muslims worship the one true God:

The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. (Nostra Aetate 3)

and please be sure to note that “regards with esteem” does not declare that their salvation will come from their current set of beliefs regarding this same God.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Just wanted to also add this…

The Second Vatican Council taught that Muslims worship the one true God:

The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. (Nostra Aetate 3)

and please be sure to note that “regards with esteem” does not declare that their salvation will come from their current set of beliefs regarding this same God.

And I thought contemporary Protestantism had problems… just kidding of course. How does the Catholic Church get around these verses and many like it in regards to Muslims worshiping the same God as me and you? What does that do for missions too? I guess the Catholic Church is okay with President Obama basically saying the same things as the Catholic Church in regards to Muslims. It seems to me that this official Catholic position in regards to Islam has changed over the years. I don’t think Catholicism and Islam was as ecumenical friendly throughout history. Even the official view of Protestants have changed over the years (Trent and application of Trent). That seems to attack the core of Catholic teaching that the One True Church cannot error. I did note the word esteem which appears to be a political statement and ploy.

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2

John 8:24
I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. - Gal 1

2 Corinthians 11:4
For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Maybe when teachers, Priests, bishops, and those in the Catholic Church who teach contrary to official Catholic positions, the Catholic Church will just excommunicate them… keeping the doctrines pure according to the Magesterium? I think there is much greater diversity in the Catholic Church than most Catholics want to admit. I think Evangelicals have had the reputation for sharing Christ and Him crucified (evangelizing) with greater frequency than those from the Catholic Church. Of course, we both see dimly and know in part.

I acknowledge that there are a great many Catholics that are teaching doctrines at odds with what the Church proclaims as doctrine. That only undescores the need for an authority on matters of doctrine and morals… so that we do not find ourselves pulled this way and that by people selling another gospel. This authority will remain, even if individual bishops, priests, laity are not teaching in union with it. That was my point.

P.S. The Church does not excommunicate Catholics who simply disagree (or struggle) with matters of doctrine and morals. People are excommunicated for acts that are gravely contrary to the faith. And even those who are excommunicated can be forgiven and receive the sacraments once again. I’m not sure exactly what your point is here.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SteveGC]

Acknowledging that the faith of others is admirably directed toward the one true God, even as that faith is not directed through the one true mediator, Jesus Christ, is a far cry from affirming them in that faith, or suggesting that that faith will save them. The Church is purposeful never to affirm anyone in a faith which resides outside of the narrow path of Christ, and She certainly affirms for everyone the wisdom contained within those verses you cited, and much much more.

But the Church also recognizes that She does not possess the knowledge of the ultimate condemnation of anyone, not even Judas. And, being a universal beacon of the faith, and being internationally recognized as a trustworthy source of knowledge regarding all faiths and as a steadfast defender of truth, the Church is compelled to reach out ecumenically to those of other faiths, acknowledge the elements which do bind us together as humans in our search for God, and lay foundations for education and evangelization.

The fact that the Church has perhaps become more ecumenical over the years, perhaps changing some of the language directed toward the faiths of non-Catholics, certainly laying down bridges for more personalized outreach, has nothing to do with teaching error. The protection from error, officially called infallibility - which has existed since Pentecost - is specifically directed toward the official proclamation of doctrine (as RobertSD alluded to above). These are doctrines related specifically to saving faith and morality. Stating that a Protestant, or Muslim, is included in God’s plan of salvation is, as I stated in my last post, not a statement that their current path will save them, no more than they tell Catholics that their path within the Church will absolutely ultimately save them. Rather, it is a statement and affirmation that God desires the salvation of all men, yet He allows all of them free will to cooperate with His Grace which empowers their potential salvation. This affirmation is not in error…indeed, it is quite inline with the mysterious mercy of God, who does not state who specifically will be ultimately saved or condemned.

Blessings.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Acknowledging that the faith of others is admirably directed toward the one true God, even as that faith is not directed through the one true mediator, Jesus Christ, is a far cry from affirming them in that faith, or suggesting that that faith will save them. The Church is purposeful never to affirm anyone in a faith which resides outside of the narrow path of Christ, and She certainly affirms for everyone the wisdom contained within those verses you cited, and much much more.

But the Church also recognizes that She does not possess the knowledge of the ultimate condemnation of anyone, not even Judas. And, being a universal beacon of the faith, and being internationally recognized as a trustworthy source of knowledge regarding all faiths and as a steadfast defender of truth, the Church is compelled to reach out ecumenically to those of other faiths, acknowledge the elements which do bind us together as humans in our search for God, and lay foundations for education and evangelization.

The fact that the Church has perhaps become more ecumenical over the years, perhaps changing some of the language directed toward the faiths of non-Catholics, certainly laying down bridges for more personalized outreach, has nothing to do with teaching error. The protection from error, officially called infallibility - which has existed since Pentecost - is specifically directed toward the official proclamation of doctrine (as RobertSD alluded to above). These are doctrines related specifically to saving faith and morality. Stating that a Protestant, or Muslim, is included in God’s plan of salvation is, as I stated in my last post, not a statement that their current path will save them, no more than they tell Catholics that their path within the Church will absolutely ultimately save them. Rather, it is a statement and affirmation that God desires the salvation of all men, yet allows all of them free will to cooperate with His Grace which empowers their potential salvation. This affirmation is not in error…indeed, it is quite inline with the mysterious mercy of God, who does not state who specifically will be ultimately saved or condemned.

Blessings.

Thanks for the well written and informative post. I am familiar with the Council of Trent and the Catholic Catechism. Does the Church teach that a forensic justification to be a damnable error? I think our understanding of justification creates a line that really cannot be crossed theologically. I’m not sure if you see it this way too.

 

[SteveGC]

Thanks for the well written and informative post. I am familiar with the Council of Trent and the Catholic Catechism. Does the Church teach that a forensic justification to be a damnable error? I think our understanding of justification creates a line that really cannot be crossed theologically. I’m not sure if you see it this way too.

I personally don’t think the conflict over the basic application of justification in and of itself creates that line. What creates that line is the residual effect of the conclusions a believer draws and holds fast to *as a result *of their subscription to either the forensic declaration camp, or the communicative cleansing camp of justification. In the former, the belief which follows is that they are instantaneously heaven-bound, regardless of future and probable sin. Whereas in the latter Catholic teaching, the follow-on belief is that our journey toward heaven has just begun, and heaven is not necessarily, and certainly not automatically, the inevitable conclusion…the reality of it happens only at the end of our earthly journey (our physical death), and the realization of it depends largely on our perpetual cooperative responses to the saving Graces of God (keeping the commandments, reconciling when we gravely sin, etc). It is these follow-on beliefs that create a stonewall of disunity.

Now, if the Protestant community could acknowledge that the believer must cooperate with the Grace of God throughout their lives, must reconcile with God contritely as grave sin enters their hearts and actions, acknowledging that heaven is determined for them at the end of their lives, not before, then I think that even if they still held to the forensic justification model, that the sinner is merely “covered” by Grace and declared righteous, there could be a bridge that can be crossed between us. But I just don’t see how one can believe that they are instanteously declared righteous and worthy of heaven, and simultaneously realize that they are bound to cooperative with that Grace throughout their lives if they desire to see God face to face.

The Catholic Church, as far as I know, never declares a doctrinal error to be “damnable” per se, but She does not hesitate to provide due warning (just as the Apostles themselves did, frankly) that a departure from the revealed truths regarding remaining in a state of Grace carries with it a significant potentiality of eternal damnation. Certainly those within the Church that would promulgate and openly profess a forensic justification with a resultant instantaneous eternal salvation would be at high risk of excommunication.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I personally don’t think the conflict over the basic application of justification in and of itself creates that line. What creates that line is the residual effect of the conclusions a believer draws and holds fast to *as a result *of their subscription to either the forensic declaration camp, or the communicative cleansing camp of justification. In the former, the belief which follows is that they are instantaneously heaven-bound, regardless of future and probable sin. Whereas in the latter Catholic teaching, the follow-on belief is that our journey toward heaven has just begun, and heaven is not necessarily, and certainly not automatically, the inevitable conclusion…the reality of it happens only at the end of our earthly journey (our physical death), and the realization of it depends largely on our perpetual cooperative responses to the saving Graces of God (keeping the commandments, reconciling when we gravely sin, etc). It is these follow-on beliefs that create a stonewall of disunity.

Now, if the Protestant community could acknowledge that the believer must cooperate with the Grace of God throughout their lives, must reconcile with God contritely as grave sin enters their hearts and actions, acknowledging that heaven is determined for them at the end of their lives, not before, then I think that even if they still held to the forensic justification model, that the sinner is merely “covered” by Grace and declared righteous, there could be a bridge that can be crossed between us. But I just don’t see how one can believe that they are instanteously declared righteous and worthy of heaven, and simultaneously realize that they are bound to cooperative with that Grace throughout their lives if they desire to see God face to face.

The Catholic Church, as far as I know, never declares a doctrinal error to be “damnable” per se, but She does not hesitate to provide due warning (just as the Apostles themselves did, frankly) that a departure from the revealed truths regarding remaining in a state of Grace carries with it a significant potentiality of eternal damnation. Certainly those within the Church that would promulgate and openly profess a forensic justification with a resultant instantaneous eternal salvation would be at high risk of excommunication.

Another good and informative post. However, we need to seperate Charles Finney theology common in Protestant churches today from what the Reformers believed in justification and the process of sanctification. I reject easy believisn, altar calls, and decisional regeneration as being biblical, nor are they Reformed ideas. Do you agree with Luther’s quote of

“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.”

Martin Luther

 

[SteveGC]

Another good and informative post. However, we need to seperate Charles Finney theology common in Protestant churches today from what the Reformers believed in justification and the process of sanctification. I reject easy believisn, altar calls, and decisional regeneration as being biblical, nor are they Reformed ideas. Do you agree with Luther’s quote of

“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.”

Martin Luther

With some critical hesitations and reservations underlying the full story of Luther’s rejection of the Church, I do agree with this quote inasmuch as it agrees with Catholic teaching. The Joint Declaration in 1999 between the Catholic Church and Lutheran Federation is useful for the revelation of misconceptions and moving toward some semblance of unification. I’m not intimately familiar with the background of all that, but I’m sure we agree with far more than we think we do, and the disagreements and debates are courtesy of unnecessary extremist language on both sides of the fence. Here’s a link to CAF’s article on that JD in 99.

 

[2nd_Adam]

With some critical hesitations and reservations underlying the full story of Luther’s rejection of the Church, I do agree with this quote inasmuch as it agrees with Catholic teaching. The Joint Declaration in 1999 between the Catholic Church and Lutheran Federation is useful for the revelation of misconceptions and moving toward some semblance of unification. I’m not intimately familiar with the background of all that, but I’m sure we agree with far more than we think we do, and the disagreements and debates are courtesy of unnecessary extremist language on both sides of the fence. Here’s a link to CAF’s article on that JD in 99.

I think Catholics would be wise to seperate modern day mainstream Protestantism from historic Protestantism. However, modern day protestantism is more compatible with the Catholic Faith in regards to being synergestic as compared to historic Protestantism being monogestic in regards to conversion, regeneration, and justification. Can modern day Protestants really identify with the the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation?

 

[SteveGC]

I think Catholics would be wise to seperate modern day mainstream Protestantism from historic Protestantism. However, modern day protestantism is more compatible with the Catholic Faith in regards to being synergestic as compared to historic Protestantism being monogestic in regards to conversion, regeneration, and justification. Can modern day Protestants really identify with the the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation?

My experience, and being part of Protestantism myself not long ago, is that most modern Protestants don’t even fully know the original 5 solas, but in practice, they follow most of them…and if asked directly about them with their official defintions, would subscribe to most of them. Not all, but most.

Breaking them down…

Sola Scriptura is definitely accepted all modern Protestant circles that I’m aware of. This is the pivotal Sola, as the rejection of the Church is what Protestantism IS, and Scripture HAD to fill the void by default. Somehow convince them this is erroneous, and Protestantism as we know it crumbles. I pray for that day, frankly.

Sola Fide is a gray area. There are many modern communities who do recognize that post-profession-of-faith obedience and contrite repentance are a necessity for salvation, and therefore do not hold to the original reformist notion. Not all, and certainly not most that I encounter here on CAF…but on the whole I think there are many who do not subscribe to Faith Alone. Most who do subscribe to it don’t diminish good works, but the claim is that the works automatically flow from the “true” faith. It eradicates free will IMO, and the necessary synergism to effect our ultimate salvation. I think there’s a chance we can find considerable common ground on this Sola. Cooperation with grace is not as “believer-does-the-good-work-all-on-his-own-accord” as Protestants think Catholics believe. Likewise, it’s not as “God-does-absolutely-everything-for-the-believer” as Catholics think Protestants believe.

Sola Gracia. This one comes down to a misunderstanding of the source vs. the effect of salvation. The Church has always professed Grace alone is the source of salvific power (although the Reformers erroneously thought that the Church taught that it is our works-alone that serves as that source). Certainly I believe most modern Protestant groups hold to the original intent of this Sola. This is probably one of the most reconcilable arguments between the two camps. As soon as we can all settle down and realize that we both agree that Grace alone is the source which empowers our salvation, we can build a good bridge there. The difference lies in the effect, or application, of that Gracious source, in the life of a believer. This goes back to Sola Fide, and the issues with that.

I think most Protestants fully adhere to Solo Christo. Of course, that Christ is the one true mediator to the Father, is universally accepted by modern Protestantism, and of course also by the Catholic Church (who was the original professor of that truth). But, although many evangelical Protestants don’t recognize the concept of sacraments at all, most Protestant camps that still recognize and administer sacraments reject the notion of Holy Orders and authentic ordination necessary to effect most of those sacraments. Therefore, on the whole, the orignal “solo Christo” is alive and well today.

Finally, Soli Deo gloria is also alive and well today, as most Protestants certainly believe all Glory to God alone. And, most Protestants I know still erroneously think that the Church glorifies Saints, Popes and higher clergy to the same level as the Glory due to God. Of course, the Church teaches Glory to God alone, and veneration to the saints - quite a radical difference. So, an unfortunate misunderstanding that led to this Sola.

So, where does that leave us? For the most part, the original Solas are still with modern Protestants, with a few exceptions here and there. As you can see, some issues face difficult reconciliation, but other issues just need civil discussion and recognition of historical misconceptions.

Blessings.