Questions about the Catholic Faith from a Protestant

[javelin]

jpete79,

I’ve been reading this discussion with interest, and have not posted because I didn’t want to add yet another voice to a very full discussion.

But I wanted to share something with you that really struck me when I was thinking about, and researching the origins of Christianity, and how closely it really resembles the Catholic Church today.

You probably know that one key difference between protestants and Catholics is our understanding of the Mass. I was looking into how far back the Mass really goes. Obviously, Catholics say it goes back to the Last Supper, but what did the early liturgy really look like? Was it more like the Catholic Mass, which centers around the Eucharistic celebration, or did it look like the general protestant worship service with Bible teaching?

I was floored when I read this quote from St. Justin, written in 155 A.D.:

Justin:

               **On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves ... and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: "Amen." When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.**

I found the quote in Scott Hahn’s book, The Lamb’s Supper, pp. 34-35.

Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass? What Justin describes is the Mass, almost identical to how it is practiced and celebrated today in the Catholic Church. It is a powerful testament to how the Holy Spirit preserves the Church in Truth.

I pray that you may see it and come to the table He has prepared for you.

Peace,
javelin

 

[RCCDefender]

jpete79:

The Greek word for rock that Christ uses is of a similar meaning but not the same meaning of the word rock when Christ is talking about the wise and foolish builder. This is because Peter may be a founder of the Church but Christ is still the head of the Church.

Ahhhh… The great petra/petros debate! I guess you have a problem with that… However, Jesus did not speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic. There is one word for “rock” in Aramaic and it is Kephas. So what Jesus would have actually said was: Thou art Kephas, and on this Kephas I will build my Church. When translating something is always lost. In this case, the writer had to make a change to make the wording gender consistent. Most languages have a gender assigned to words. The fact that the writer used petra and petros shows that Christ intended the words to mean the same thing. Otherwise, the writer would have conveyed a distinction by naming Peter Lithos, the more common term for a small pebble.

There is always a danger in coming up with one’s own meaning for something that’s read. The reader should always check the source of the writing (in this case, the Church wrote it) to find out the meaning.

If I handed you a piece of paper that said: I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE THE MONEY how would you interpret that? Would you believe there was only one interpretation of that sentence? HOw many interpretations do you think there could be in that one tiny sentence?

I will await your response…

 

[JSmitty2005]

Timeline of the decisions on the books of the Bible (Canon)

AD 51-125: The New Testament books are written.

AD 140: Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods:
Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as Scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.

AD 200: The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

AD 367: The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D…

382 --Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.

393 A.D. --the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

AD 397: The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …787 A.D. The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.

AD 1442: At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.

AD 1536: In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

AD 1546: At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

---

Once you reject the Catholic Church’s authority, what’s to stop you from adding books to the Bible? Or take books away? Or rewrite verses to fit your preconceived doctrines? NOTHING…other than tradition . In fact, this is why Luther, after rejecting the Church’s authority as well as Sacred Tradition, he took it upon himself to remove the Deuterocanonical books completely from the O.T. and 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) he placed the in an appendix saying they were less than canonical (in other words – not the Word of God). He also decided to insert the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. “For we consider that a person is justified by faith ALONE apart from works of the law.”

For more on Luther, click HERE.

Now, the canon of Scripture is not the only tradition that you adhere to. Do you believe that human life is sacred from the moment of conception? It’s not explicit in the Bible, yet the pro-life cause is very much a part of Evangelicalism (is that a word? lol). Furthermore, I would assume that you don’t believe in polygamy. This is also not explicit in Scripture and that is the reasoning that Martin Luther used for allowing it. One more thing regarding Christ’s divinity, if you accept the Church’s authority on this issue, determined at the First Council of Nicaea in 325, then why don’t you accept the Church’s authority on other issues from this council, like the apostolicity of the Church which is stated in the Nicene Creed?

-Jon

 

[mike182d]

1. The Bible says
no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21

Unfortunately, your position is entirely unbiblical. When Peter was referring to those moved by the Holy Spirit, he wasn’t talking about every single baptised Christian. Read the whole chapter and not just that line.

Here’s a couple passages right before the one you give:

“18. We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

Who is the “we” that Peter is talking about? The Apostles. It would make absolutely no sense for Peter to say that Scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation, but anyone with the Holy Spirit can interpret it of their own accord. That’s a contradiction. What he’s saying is that “we” - or rather the Apostles - possesses the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. Not Scripture, not you, but the Apostles. Therefore, if one wishes to correctly interpret Scripture they cannot contradict the reliable testimony of the Apostles. The Apostolic testimony that has been passed down for 2000 years is called “Tradition” and it precedes the existence of the New Testament and was instrumental in its formation.

1. This is a much longer answer and because I am at work I cannot take the needed time but can give you a quick article on it…mind you I myself only briefly read this and think that there are some good points.
   ginesys.com/redeemer/

The first problem with this is that when the author quotes Jesus mentioning “Scripture,” Jesus is not referring to the New Testament as it had not even been written yet. “Scripture” was the Old Testament - the Law and the writtings of the Prophets. For example, Jesus never quotes the New Testament. Furthermore, the point still stands that *nowhere *in the Bible does Jesus tell the Apostles to *add *books to existing Scripture. Jesus never says that the Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are true descriptions of His life and should stand as the authoritative rule of faith, as opposed to the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary Magdelene. In fact, no where in the Bible does the Bible say that it, alone, is the sole rule of faith.

That position is unbiblical.

1. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16)
   Also, Christ says there is no way to the Father except through him…He is the way, the truth and the life…When asked about eternal life Love the God with all your heart, mind and soul AND love your neighbor as yourself…

These are indicative of the belief that faith in Christ and God alone are sufficient for Salvation.

That, unfortunately, is not what Christ says about eternal salvation. Read Matthew 25:31-46 when Christ talks about the final judgement. I would post it here, but it is a bit too long.

In this passage, not once does Christ say He seperates the “sheep” from the “goats” because of their faith. At the final judgement, the righteous are those to do the will of God and the unrighteous are those who do not do the will of God. Nowhere does Christ mention belief in the Bible or in Himself. However, it is inherent within the command to serve Christ that you believe Him, but one is ultimately judged on their service to the Lord.

Being saved and eternal salvation are two completely different things. Suppose someone is drowning and the lifeguard pulls him out of the water. That man will most likely say “you saved my life!” Does the man mean that he will never be at risk of dying again? Of course not. It merely means he’s been given another chance at life. Being “saved” by Christ is a continual process that happens many, many times throughout one’s life. Catholics call these “Sacraments,” and there is nothing we have done to “earn” Christ saving us in those moments - He does so freely of His own accord. Eternal salvation is another matter entirely, which Jesus clearly points out in Matthew’s Gospel.

 

[JSmitty2005]

jpete79:

1- I don’t hold that the Church gave it to us…I hold that God gave it to us. The Law was considered Scripture long before the Church, The books of the prophets and the Psalms were as well. These were written long before ANY Church was in existence (if you translated them that is a different story).

I just feel like I need to address this again. The fact that **God ** gave us the Bible through the Catholic Church IS NOT the premise of my argument. Read it again:

How can you hold as your final and only authority something that Christ didn’t give us?

Do you not think that it is more credible for us to accept an authority established by Christ and promised by Him to teach the Gospel to the world until the end of time? I sure do. That is why I’m a Catholic, because of my trust in Christ & His eternal promise.

When you get home from work, I beg you to read the article I posted in post #165 and post #166 with a sincere & open heart & mind. I will await your rebuttal.

jpete79:

Let’s not speak on Sola Scriptura for the time being or Tradition/Scripture but just talk about beliefs that are similar (only talk about where they differ if they do)…

I don’t think it’s a good idea to avoid our disagreements. After all, Christ’s last prayer to His Father in Gesthemene was that His followers would be one. He didn’t only want a spiritual unity, though, but also a unity in belief:

“I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.” 1 Cor. 1:10 (also refer to one of my previous posts)

There are only 3 options in our disagreements (I may have said this before). First, the Catholics could be right. Second, the Protestants could be right. Third, we could both be wrong. It could never be true that we are both right on an issue in which we disagree. So, the first option makes sense to me. The Catholic Church teaches the same things that the early Church Fathers talk about. The second option doesn’t seem to work for me since many of these ideas were invented in the 16th century. This seems to call Christ a liar in that He didn’t keep His promise to stay with His Church. Now, if the Reformers had restored the Church to its former self, then Protestantism would be more believable, however, they didn’t restore anything; rather, they started their own churches. (This reminds me of something I once heard about wolves in sheeps clothing.) This can be realized by simply looking at the beliefs of the early Church and comparing them to today’s Protestants. Finally, the third option cannot be true either, for the same reason that the second option cannot be true. But, that’s just my :twocents:
Chris W:

This seems to be what jpete79 is suggesting (look at what is common between our religions, to get a picture of where to go from here).

Sounds like a good approach. It often is beneficial for people from differing viewpoints to begin with what we DO agree on.

As odd as it may sound after what I just said, I totally agree with you. We need to *focus * on our agreements, BUT we cannot exclude our disagreements in a kind of vague politeness. These things need to be sorted out. In the words of Pope Leo XIII:

“…souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith…”

Now, let me get to what I was saying about the Catholic Church not inventing Sacred Tradition in my next post since it was present with God’s people all throughout salvation history.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Some of you may notice that this is from Patrick Madrid’s book Why is That in Tradition?. I don’t think he’ll mind if I post this excerpt on here. By the way, jpete79, if you want to understand the Catholic side of Tradition, this is a great book to start with. Also, Mark Shea (whom I heard speak last night ) has a book out called By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition. Since I just bought it last night, I haven’t had a chance to read it, but if it’s anything like his lecture it should be an excellent book. Start reading at “Examples of Oral Tradition Mentioned in the New Testament.” Alright, here goes (sorry that it’s sooo big):

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JSmitty2005]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JSmitty2005]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JSmitty2005]

There ya have it! I hope that helps a little.

Sincerely,
Jon

 

[mattrue]

James 2:14-26
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD ALSO.

if you didnt get a chance - fisheaters.com//solafide.html

 

[JSmitty2005]

I don’t know if jpete79 is still on this thread, but just in case, I have some questions for you that I found here on the Catholic Answers website:

Question #1: If we are saved by faith alone, then do we need to love in order to be saved? If so, then we are not saved by faith alone, are we? We are saved by faith and love—which Catholics refer to as faith working through love (cf. Gal. 5:6). If a person says we do not need love in order to be saved, then he is saying we can get to heaven without loving God or our fellow man—a patently ridiculous position to take. Also, if faith alone saves us, faith without love, why does 1 Corinthians 13:13 say that love is greater than faith? After all, if salvation is the greatest thing we can achieve, and it is by faith alone that we achieve salvation, then faith should be greater than love. But the Bible says differently.

Question #2: If you have faith, but have not works, can your faith save you? If a person answers yes, then he contradicts Scripture (cf. Jas. 2:14–17). If he agrees with Scripture and answers no, then he agrees that it’s not faith alone that saves us. And, if James is talking about a different kind of faith, where in the Bible does it say that? Don’t bother looking, it’s not there.

Question #3: Christ redeemed all men with his death on the cross. In other words, he paid the price for all men’s sins. Yet not all men are saved. What is the difference between those who are merely redeemed and those who are redeemed and saved? Is it something Jesus did, or is it something each saved individual does? If it’s something Christ did, then why aren’t all men saved? After all, Scripture says he desires that all men be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:3–4). But if it’s something the individual believer did, then isn’t that a work? The point here is that the believer has to “do” something in order to be saved. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever is not something Jesus did; it is something the believer did that the unbeliever didn’t do: The former believed, by the grace of God, but he had to cooperate with that grace. He had to do something or else he would not have been “saved.”

Question #4: Do we have to forgive others in order to have our sins forgiven by God? If yes, then we are not saved by faith alone. After all, we cannot be saved if we do not have our sins forgiven, and we cannot have our sins forgiven if we do not forgive others. Therefore, we are saved by faith and at least one work: the work of forgiving others of their sins against us. If you answer no, that we do not have to forgive others in order to have our sins forgiven, then you are going directly against what Jesus says in Matthew 6:14.

 

[JSmitty2005]

By the way, jpete79, it just hit me that my signature may be misleading with regard to salvation. I’m not intending to imply that we work to get to Heaven. “Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you.” is a saying that’s been attributed to both St. Augustine and St. Ignatius of Loyola. I don’t know who really said it though. Anyways, the reason I put it as my signature is because I’m tired of people saying that we don’t need to do anything about the current situation of our world/the Church. For example, I’m involved with some pro-life activities, but some of my friends will say things like, “Don’t worry about it, the Holy Spirit will take care of it.” That is all that’s meant by it, and I just thought I’d clear that up.

-Jon

 

[JSmitty2005]

Some more thoughts of mine:

It shouldn’t be that hard to believe that Catholics feel there is no salvation outside of the Church. We both agree that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. Now, as Catholics, we believe that the Catholic Church was established by Christ Himself, so why wouldn’t salvation be affected by our membership in His Church? I know you’re looking at this as a Protestant, but just consider it from our point of view. It just makes sense that if He established a Church that He would want His followers to be members of it.

Another thought is this: don’t you find it ironic that the two Churches, Catholic & Orthodox* , that claim to have existed since the time of Christ both have the same beliefs?

*(actually there is not 1 Orthodox Church, but many - this disunity is surely due to their separation from the Holy See)

 

[jpete79]

Smitty:

I think you ask fair questions and I will respond in kind…by the way I’ve heard that quote before…I also know that we don’t just say we accept Christ, it must be a deep founded belief and after that through Faith we better ourselves for Him and want to build a relationship more with him.

Question 1: faith alone…again this is just a semantical difference. I don’t think someone can have true faith in God without the love that is also there. I did a lesson on this and said that there are various types of faith…claiming faith (saying you believe), believing faith (straight belief in something), and loving faith (true faith exemplified by what you do)…the story that I used in the lesson was the Good Samaritan. So again there are semantical errors when I say faith alone…but be certain I mean a loving faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and in Abba, Father.

Question 2: I won’t bother looking James is one of my favorite Books (and its also my name ). Again, if you look at my first answer its the Faith that brings about the deeds. It’s the fact that I love God that makes me want to do good for Him.

Question 3: Reconciliation has two parts…Christ did die for all men’s sins but that’s only half the part of reconciliation to God…the other part is the person has to accept what He did and want forgiveness for those sins that Christ paid for.

Question 4: Yes, we are called to forgive as we were forgiven. We should have no outstanding debts. Again, I think this comes with the aspect of love that I was talking about.

I think what Luther was trying to do was simplify everything to get to a base of mere Christianity. The essentials of knowing God.

I would say I believe in a Loving Faith alone.

When I was in college I had a teacher who let a grad student run his class. Now, during class, the grad student wasn’t the best teacher in the world. When my second test came up (my first one was terrible), I went straight to the professor for assistance and my grades improved. It turned out when the year ended only 4 students passed (and all of them went for outside help).

Now, even though it had a grad student teaching, the class still belonged to the professor. He was still a direct link.

The next year, I was not in that professor’s class, however; I still had a class that he taught. I would still go to him for help (and my grades were still ok). Even though I am not in that class am I still a student to the professor?

This is the same way I feel about the whole idea of the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches. There are teachers there (Bishops, Priests, etc) but the direct link to Christ is still there as well. Some people still use the teachers and links but there is nothing wrong with going to the Head Priest himself. I am still a student of Christ.

 

[javelin]

jpete79:

I would say I believe in a Loving Faith alone.

As do we, jpete79. We believe was are saved by Grace through faith working in love.

The reformers, in general, did not believe what you state. From what I know, for example, Calvin believed that only some were given the gift of faith, and those few were the only ones saved. The ones chosen by God are predestined to eternal life, while everyone else was lost. This means that our choices in life have nothing to do with our salvation. God chooses some, and that’s it. If we are not one of the elect, then we cannot choose to accept God’s Grace offered through Christ.

That image of God is awful to me.

One doctrine that is inextricably tied to Salvation by faith alone is “Once saved, always saved”. Do you believe that slavation can be lost? Does man, once adopted by God through baptism, choose to renounce his heritage and sever his relationship with the Family of God?

Peace,
javelin

 

[jpete79]

javelin:

As do we, jpete79. We believe was are saved by Grace through faith working in love.

The reformers, in general, did not believe what you state. From what I know, for example, Calvin believed that only some were given the gift of faith, and those few were the only ones saved. The ones chosen by God are predestined to eternal life, while everyone else was lost. This means that our choices in life have nothing to do with our salvation. God chooses some, and that’s it. If we are not one of the elect, then we cannot choose to accept God’s Grace offered through Christ.

That image of God is awful to me.

One doctrine that is inextricably tied to Salvation by faith alone is “Once saved, always saved”. Do you believe that slavation can be lost? Does man, once adopted by God through baptism, choose to renounce his heritage and sever his relationship with the Family of God?

Peace,
javelin

Hey Javelin,
So we agree on loving faith…I can’t say that the reformers believed or didn’t believe in this…I think it maybe what they meant but semantically wanted to keep things simple (therefore the 5 Solas being only 2 words each).

As far as Calvin goes…I believe that he has some merit in the idea of predestination…but only in the fact that God is beginning and end and is timeless; therefore he knows the outcome. However, becauase we are finite we have to live through this existence. It is a doctrine that I don’t think a human mind can comprehend though and therefore trust in God as a loving God that knows what He’s doing I agree that it would be taking away free-will and God would be essentially a puppeteer if it was 100% accurate.

Last, I believe that a man who has whole-heartedly accepted Christ and is choosing to live life accordingly cannot in fact lose his salvation. Will he sin? Yes. But I feel that the Spirit once it has hold of the person is eternal in Him and will not let go (no matter how much the person screws up). I don’t have the Biblical support this second (I’m at work) but I can post it when I get it.

Now, I have a question for you…I’ve been reading through the Catechism a little bit in down time. I am still in section 1 and here’s a statement that caught my eye
I. “Lord, Look upon the Faith of Your Church”

168
It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes, and sustains my faith. Everywhere, it is the Church that first confesses the Lord: “Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you,” as we sing in the hymn “Te Deum”; with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: “I believe,” “We believe.” It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” And the answer is: “Faith.” “What does faith offer you?” "Eternal life."54

169
Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

Can you help me in understanding this section. I don’t understand how it was the Church that believed first and gives us Faith (especially since earlier it said that Faith is a God-given gift)?

with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: “I believe,” “We believe.” Don’t we have to know God before we are a part of the Church? We have to confess to know that we are sinners before we are accepted by God and the Church doesn’t do that, the Grace of God does.

 

[JSmitty2005]

jpete79:

I think what Luther was trying to do was simplify everything to get to a base of mere Christianity. The essentials of knowing God.

I beg to differ. I’m not sure if you got to check out the link that I sent you on Luther (I know I’ve been sending a lot lately - sorry), but if you didn’t, I’ll post a section of it here:

---

Luther Said: 'Be A Sinner’
“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” ('Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s
Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521.)

Luther is actually saying that our actions – even the most sinful actions imaginable – don’t matter! He is saying we can commit any sin we want – willfully, presumptuously, purposefully – and we will not separate ourselves from God! After all, we require nothing more than “faith” to be saved. What we do is incidental. Of course anyone familiar with Scripture will point out that this is not a Christian teaching. For throughout the Bible we are told that sin can and does separate us from God – remember how he will separate the sheep from the goats, (Mt. 25:32) and the wheat from the tares, (Mt. 13:30), and the bearing trees from the barren (Mt. 3:10.)

The writer of Hebrews is clear: We will be judged on how we live out our faith. And sin will ensure our judgment is harsh: “If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.” (Heb. 10:26-29.) For the redemption that Jesus earned for us – a free gift – is not imposed on the unwilling. We must choose it and embrace it and , very often, suffer for it. “‘Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.’” (Mt. 16:24.)

Continued…

 

[JSmitty2005]

Luther Said: Doing Good Is More Dangerous Than Sinning
“Those pious souls who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” (Wittenberg, VI, 160, quoted by O’Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 122.)

You must be thinking, “What? Could he possibly have written what I thought I just read? ‘It is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.’” Well okay, read it again, just to make sure. We’ll wait.

See? You were right the first time. Luther cautions us against good and upright actions. He says, don’t worry about sin – Jesus will take care of it. But doing good – that you’d better watch out for. Especially if you think being kind and generous and loving will affect your outcome at the final judgment.

In his hubris, he ignores verse after verse of Scripture – New Testament and Old – where we are told that the way we live out our faith will be the criterion upon which we will be judged. As Paul makes eminently clear in Rom. 2: 5-11, “…the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works.” And again in 2 Cor. 5:10, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat… so that each one may receive recompense , according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.”

Luther was utterly and monumentally wrong – wrong for the ages. Where does it say in Scripture that we can wreak unprovoked havoc on our brothers and sisters and cynically murder a thousand people a day and expect – poof! – to be saved? Nowhere, obviously.

Only true repentance can heal the rift that sin creates between the individual and God – the kind of true repentance one evidences through facing one’s sins squarely and honestly and saying them out loud in the sacrament of Reconciliation. And it is highly doubtful that a person like, say, Adolph Hitler – the only man I can think of who ever came anywhere near the thousand-a-day murder quota that Luther stipulates – would ever muster true repentance, even at the point of death. If he did, of course, he would be saved. But imagine how big that ‘if’ would have to be. And Luther doesn’t mention repentance, even in passing, anywhere in the passage.

---

You see, I don’t think that Luther’s idea of ‘faith alone’ is really compatible with that of most modern Protestants. Would you agree? There’s no wonder that the Church excommunicated the guy! Also, he was a very emotionally unstable person. He was overly scrupulous and would go to Confession for hours on end. Eventually he snapped and created this doctrine in order to bring himself some peace. This is quite obvious in his actions (like I’ve said before). He put James and Hebrews in an appendix saying it wasn’t canonical, and he also added the word “alone” to a passage in Romans to back up his new doctrine. And no one could stop him because he was his own authority (the consequence of rejecting Tradition and the Church).

In Christ,
Jon

PS - Did you read the things I posted about Tradition in the O.T.? I wasn’t sure if you could see them since they’re scanned images. I’ve had trouble with them in the past.

 

[jpete79]

Luther Said: Doing Good Is More Dangerous Than Sinning
“Those pious souls who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” (Wittenberg, VI, 160, quoted by O’Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 122.)

You must be thinking, “What? Could he possibly have written what I thought I just read? ‘It is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.’” Well okay, read it again, just to make sure. We’ll wait.

See? You were right the first time. Luther cautions us against good and upright actions. He says, don’t worry about sin – Jesus will take care of it. But doing good – that you’d better watch out for. Especially if you think being kind and generous and loving will affect your outcome at the final judgment.

In his hubris, he ignores verse after verse of Scripture – New Testament and Old – where we are told that the way we live out our faith will be the criterion upon which we will be judged. As Paul makes eminently clear in Rom. 2: 5-11, “…the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works.” And again in 2 Cor. 5:10, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat… so that each one may receive recompense , according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.”

Luther was utterly and monumentally wrong – wrong for the ages. Where does it say in Scripture that we can wreak unprovoked havoc on our brothers and sisters and cynically murder a thousand people a day and expect – poof! – to be saved? Nowhere, obviously.

Only true repentance can heal the rift that sin creates between the individual and God – the kind of true repentance one evidences through facing one’s sins squarely and honestly and saying them out loud in the sacrament of Reconciliation. And it is highly doubtful that a person like, say, Adolph Hitler – the only man I can think of who ever came anywhere near the thousand-a-day murder quota that Luther stipulates – would ever muster true repentance, even at the point of death. If he did, of course, he would be saved. But imagine how big that ‘if’ would have to be. And Luther doesn’t mention repentance, even in passing, anywhere in the passage.

---

You see, I don’t think that Luther’s idea of ‘faith alone’ is really compatible with that of most modern Protestants. Would you agree? There’s no wonder that the Church excommunicated the guy! Also, he was a very emotionally unstable person. He was overly scrupulous and would go to Confession for hours on end. Eventually he snapped and created this doctrine in order to bring himself some peace. This is quite obvious in his actions (like I’ve said before). He put James and Hebrews in an appendix saying it wasn’t canonical, and he also added the word “alone” to a passage to back up his new doctrine.

In Christ,
Jon

PS - Did you read the things I posted about Tradition in the O.T.? I wasn’t sure if you could see them since they’re scanned images. I’ve had trouble with them in the past.

Thanks for the info…

I didn’t read it yet because today I’ve been a bit busier than normal.

Now what is written sounds alot like the practice of the Nicolatians. Nicolas (who was one of the first deacons in Acts) decided that Christians were sinners saved by Grace and therefore could live like the world. This was the basis of his belief and was the basis of Christ’s response in Revelation when he said don’t practice what the Nicolatians do (I believe he said it in the Letter to the Church in Ephesus).

Which brings me to a question…if this was an early Church Deacon appointed by the Apostles and his ideals were wrong; whats to say the same can’t happen through time?

Also, interestingly enough when reading the Catechism on Baptism, it says that infant Baptism has been proven to be as early as the 3rd century (maybe it was second) but does say that it is not in the Bible but may be inferred to). It was also Origen who started this idea when in Alexandria.

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.[53]

It says it is quite possible that it was in Apostlic teaching but not certain that…
Just thought I’d share.

 

[JSmitty2005]

jpete79:

Which brings me to a question…if this was an early Church Deacon appointed by the Apostles and his ideals were wrong; whats to say the same can’t happen through time?

First of all, he’s just some random deacon and not a bishop. Although he was appointed by an Apostle, he is not their successor (ie. - bishop). Secondly, even if he was a bishop, there have been heretical bishops throughout history. The Bishop of Rome (Peter’s successor) is the only exception. The Bishop of Rome has always been orthodox in his official teachings on faith and morals. Finally, even if it were Peter who had said this (this only works before Christ’s Ascension), it still wouldn’t matter. There were many erroneous things that the Apostles claimed, but Christ was always there to correct and reprimand them. After His Ascension, however, He wasn’t around anymore to straighten them out. This is why He established an authoritative Church with Peter at its head. Also, this is why Jesus said to Peter, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom…” He was saying that in the future tense. Christ would not religate His authority to Peter (which He can do since He’s God) until He had gone back into Heaven.

-Jon