Reading Scripture together as Christians

[guanophore]

Thanks for posting Scriptures by the Apostle Paul. I don’t think you posted anything that would support the 7 Roman Catholic sacraments as they key to salvation.

The sacraments are not “Roman”. Every time you say this, it communicates bigotry and ignorance. I will ask you directly to stop.

I don’t know what “key to salvation” you are referring to here. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by the grace of God, through faith. Our salvation was purchased for us on the cross by the shed blood of the Lamb.

Sacraments are channels of grace through which we can access and continue in the grace that flows from the cross.

In contrast to the sacramental way of salvation, I think Paul has an extremely high view of salvation by faith…

No, Reformed, there is no “contrast” except in your imagination. The sacraments all represent the highest view of salvation, from which we, on bended knee, can see eternity. There is no higher worship than the Divine Liturgy, in which we are joined to Jesus on the cross.

to the point of teaching grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone.

No, Paul never teaches this. I will give you a hint. Find a place in your Bible where the words “faith alone” appear together.

I think Paul only discussed two sacraments, but viewed these two sacraments different than Roman Catholic theology. Consider Paul’s thesis statement of his most important Epistile.

It seems this way to you because you do not understand the sacraments.

Romans 1:16-17

The Righteous Shall Live by Faith

I think you imagine that Catholics believe we are made righteous by our own works, instead of by faith. You seem to perceive the sacraments as “works” by which we, of our own efforts, hope to “merit” heaven.

However if I am wrong, please correct me.

live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness [2] were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Reformed;4282049:

Do you understand why I write that I don’t think Paul taught Roman Catholic theology?

Not entirely. I gather that you have been misinformed about the Catholic faith, that you don’t realize that Paul is Catholic, and that the NT is a Catholic book, written by, for, and about Catholics. there is nothing in the NT that contradicts Catholic Teaching, because the whole of it was produced from Sacred Catholic Tradition.

 

[Reformed]

Paul wrote over half of the New Testament books (depending on Hebrews). If Paul believed in the 7 Roman Catholic sacraments as the key for salvation. please post Scripture by the Apostle Paul to support your Roman Catholic system of salvation through the 7 sacraments.

Paul had great emphasis on the gospel, and Christ and Him crucified on our behalf, our vital union with Christ, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone, on the basis of Christ alone…to the glory of God alone.

1 Corinthians 1:17

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

If you believe the writings of Paul cannot support Roman Catholicism way of salvation through the seven sacraments, I would like to start at thread on the writings of the Apostle John.

 

[guanophore]

Paul wrote over half of the New Testament books (depending on Hebrews). If Paul believed in the 7 Roman Catholic sacraments as the key for salvation.

The sacraments are not “Roman”, and your continued use of this word comes across as a deliberate attempt to insult Catholics. Please review the rules of the forum before you are censured. It is required here that you respect the faith of Catholics, even if you do not agree with it.

I don’t understand the meaning of your phrase “key to salvation”. I don’t find this phrase in scripture. Did you make this up?

please post Scripture by the Apostle Paul to support your Roman Catholic system of salvation through the sacraments.

The sacraments are not a “system”. If you know anything about systemics, then you know that all the parts of a “system” relate to one another. This is not the case for sacraments. Some are only recieved once, and some are received by some, and not others. Neither are some of them required in order to access others. They are gifts from Jesus, and not a “system”. You have been wrongly taught about the sacraments.

Paul had great emphasis on the gospel, and Christ and Him crucified on our behalf, our vital union with Christ, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone, on the basis of Christ alone…to the glory of God alone.

This is what you have been taught to believe by your Reformed tradition, but it is not the Apostolic message.

1 Corinthians 1:17

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

If you believe the writings of Paul cannot support Roman Catholicism way of salvation through the seven sacraments, I would like to start at thread on the writings of the Apostle John.

You misunderstand the scriptures, and the power of God. The verse you quoted here does not say that Paul did not believe or practice the sacrament of baptism.

 

[Reformed]

The Lord’s Supper
17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, [4] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for [5] you. **Do this in remembrance of me.” **[6] 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 **That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. **7] 31 But if we judged [8] ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined [9] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brothers, [10] when you come together to eat, wait for [11] one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

If you understand this as the actual flesh and blood, than all Christians who reject the actual flesh and blood should be weak, ill, and dead when they partake in communion. I think you will find through church history that this is not the case.

 

[guanophore]

The Lord’s Supper

If you understand this as the actual flesh and blood, than all Christians who reject the actual flesh and blood should be weak, ill, and dead when they partake in communion. I think you will find through church history that this is not the case.

We do understand it as the Body and Blood of the Lord, as this is what we have received from the Apostles.

One cannot understand the “rememberance” separated from the Passover, which pre-figures the Eucharist. The amanesis is a re-enactment, just as the Passover re-enacts the deliverance from Egypt, so the Eucharist re-enacts the death and resurrection of our Lord.

Those who partake only of a rememberance, such as yourself, perhaps who are separated from the Apostolic Teaching, do not have the Body and Blood, so it is impossible for them to profane the sacrament that Paul writes about in this passage. In order to commit a sacrilege, the true Body and Blood would need to be present.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

The Lord’s Supper
17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, [4] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for [5] you. **Do this in remembrance of me.” **[6] 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 **That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. **7] 31 But if we judged [8] ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined [9] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brothers, [10] when you come together to eat, wait for [11] one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

If you understand this as the actual flesh and blood, than all Christians who reject the actual flesh and blood should be weak, ill, and dead when they partake in communion. I think you will find through church history that this is not the case.

Well, first, Paul says “many,” and not “all.” Second, the part you emphasize refers to people who take Eucharist without recognizing the Real Presence. There is no Real Presence in Protestant remembrance ceremonies. So it’s a warning to bad Catholics, not to Protestants. And I think that when the interior faith of Catholics rot, there are real impacts to that - physical or spiritual.

Third, if you don’t take this literally… how do you take it? And how does the part you underline about sickness, etc., interrelate with that? Is Paul *really *saying, "this is *just *a reminder about Jesus, but if you mess it up, you’re going to get sick, die, and be liable for Divine Judgment?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Paul wrote over half of the New Testament books (depending on Hebrews).

This is that Sola Pauline interpretation of theology… you’re knowingly taking “half of the New Testament,” and disregarding the rest. Like I said, sola fide is explicitly rejected by St. James.
Reformed;4282849:

If Paul believed in the 7 Roman Catholic sacraments as the key for salvation. please post Scripture by the Apostle Paul to support your Roman Catholic system of salvation through the 7 sacraments.

Paul had great emphasis on the gospel, and Christ and Him crucified on our behalf, our vital union with Christ, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone, on the basis of Christ alone…to the glory of God alone.

1 Corinthians 1:17

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

If you believe the writings of Paul cannot support Roman Catholicism way of salvation through the seven sacraments, I would like to start at thread on the writings of the Apostle John.

I feel like you just ignored everything everyone told you, about how Catholics don’t take a sacraments-alone approach to salvation. Are you not reading other people’s responses to you? Are you intentionally going after a straw man? Or is there genuine misunderstanding?

Like other posters have said, we believe in salvation by grace, through faith. You have a preconception of what that looks like, but it’s not a view shared by the early Church. Can you defend why faith doesn’t take any involvement of the faithful, from the Bible? [Bearing in mind that no one on CAF thinks you can work your way to Heaven?].

 

[dawid]

Hi CHESTERONRULES,

I can agree with your posting. According to Paul in the light of the passage below, the righteousness that is not our own comes by faith or by the sacraments? According the the passage below, does this alien righeousness from God depends on faith or the sacraments?

A sacrament is a covenant or sacred relationship with God.

Entering with sacraments into life of the New Testament requires faith.
It’s from this relationship that we are given grace.

You attempt to separate that which is dependent on the other.

Your question is invalid!

 

[mikeledes]

Hi CHESTERONRULES,

I can agree with your posting. According to Paul in the light of the passage below, the righteousness that is not our own comes by faith or by the sacraments? According the the passage below, does this alien righeousness from God depends on faith or the sacraments?

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

I don’t see how that passage teaches the notion of an imputed alien righteousness. Paul teaches that the righteousness a Christian possesses does not have a human origin. And this is precisely what he means by righteousness that comes from the law. Righteousness that comes from the law is derived from observance of the law based on one’s natural powers. The point Paul makes throughout his epistles is that this type of righteousness may be acceptable in the eyes of men, but it is not acceptable in the eyes of God. As you already know, Catholics do not believe in an alien imputed righteousness and neither did Augustine or any of the Church Fathers. We believe in an infused righteousness. It is infused because it is a righteousness that is not natural to man. Rather, it is given by God, and hence has a divine origin. So it is righteousness that does not have its origin in man (i.e. righteousness derived from the law), but a righteousness that is of Divine origin (righteousness* from* God). And this righteousness depends on faith because we, moved by the grace of God, must turn to God in faith to receive it. As the Bible states, without faith man cannot please God.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Reformed]

This is that Sola Pauline interpretation of theology… you’re knowingly taking “half of the New Testament,” and disregarding the rest. Like I said, sola fide is explicitly rejected by St. James.

Lord willing, we will discuss the other half of the New Testament on another thread. I love the Epistle of James. I want to discuss the writings of John next. Maybe I will start another thread alongside with thread about the writings of the Apostle Paul? I still might wait too.

 

[Reformed]

This is that Sola Pauline interpretation of theology… you’re knowingly taking “half of the New Testament,” and disregarding the rest. Like I said, sola fide is explicitly rejected by St. James.

I feel like you just ignored everything everyone told you, about how Catholics don’t take a sacraments-alone approach to salvation. Are you not reading other people’s responses to you? Are you intentionally going after a straw man? Or is there genuine misunderstanding?

Like other posters have said, we believe in salvation by grace, through faith. You have a preconception of what that looks like, but it’s not a view shared by the early Church. Can you defend why faith doesn’t take any involvement of the faithful, from the Bible? [Bearing in mind that no one on CAF thinks you can work your way to Heaven?].

Could you please do this to support what you are saying? This thread is about the Bible and the 13 or 14 Epistles of Paul. Could you please share the gospel of God’s grace according to the official Roman Catholic good news (gospel) by providing scriptural proofs using the Pauline Epistles. I’m saying it can’t be done. If you say that I’m wrong, try not to post personal opinion and start posting the writings of Paul to support your position.

The Protestant Reformation is grounded on the foundation that the Roman Catholic gospel is not the same gospel found in the Scriptures alone. It is grounded in the rejection of the Catholic authority for Scriptural truth. If you think the Reformers are wrong, please take my challenge by supporting the Roman Catholic gospel with the Epistles of Paul.

 

[Reformed]

A sacrament is a covenant or sacred relationship with God.

Entering with sacraments into life of the New Testament requires faith.
It’s from this relationship that we are given grace.

You attempt to separate that which is dependent on the other.

Your question is invalid!

I understand the connection with sacrament and faith. I do not deny that. However, the Roman Catholic salvation is through the sacraments connected to faith. How do you reconcile infant baptismal regeneration if faith is necessary alongside with the converting sacrament? Do you understand that these are the same central issues that caused the Protestant Reformation in the first place? Things have not changed in 500 years. To say that the question is not valid is not dealing with the Scriptures. You are not attempting to wrestle with the Scriptures and choose to believe what the Catholic Church tells you to believe without considering the light of God’s Holy Word (Holy Bible).

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I understand the connection with sacrament and faith. I do not deny that. However, the Roman Catholic salvation is through the sacraments connected to faith. How do you reconcile infant baptismal regeneration if faith is necessary alongside with the converting sacrament? Do you understand that these are the same central issues that caused the Protestant Reformation in the first place? Things have not changed in 500 years. To say that the question is not valid is not dealing with the Scriptures. You are not attempting to wrestle with the Scriptures and choose to believe what the Catholic Church tells you to believe without considering the light of God’s Holy Word (Holy Bible).

Both Calvin and Luther believed in infant baptism.

I think you better find a different issue.

 

[Reformed]

I don’t see how that passage teaches the notion of an imputed alien righteousness. Paul teaches that the righteousness a Christian possesses does not have a human origin. And this is precisely what he means by righteousness that comes from the law. Righteousness that comes from the law is derived from observance of the law based on one’s natural powers. The point Paul makes throughout his epistles is that this type of righteousness may be acceptable in the eyes of men, but it is not acceptable in the eyes of God. As you already know, Catholics do not believe in an alien imputed righteousness and neither did Augustine or any of the Church Fathers. We believe in an infused righteousness. It is infused because it is a righteousness that is not natural to man. Rather, it is given by God, and hence has a divine origin. So it is righteousness that does not have its origin in man (i.e. righteousness derived from the law), but a righteousness that is of Divine origin (righteousness* from* God). And this righteousness depends on faith because we, moved by the grace of God, must turn to God in faith to receive it. As the Bible states, without faith man cannot please God.

God Bless,
Michael

Paul describes this alien righteousness in another way. Paul does not share the same view of the sacraments as what is taught in official Roman Catholic Theology. I also think Paul only acknowledges two biblical sacarments, and not the 7 sacarments taught by Roman Catholicism. If I’m wrong, please quote Paul.

Romans 10

Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Would you mind posting the Roman Catholic gospel by using the 13 Epistles of Paul? I don’t think it can be done. In a bible debate, it really doesn’t matter what someone claims what the Church Fathers or Augustine believed. What matters is what Paul and the other Apostles in the Bible taught and believed.

 

[Reformed]

Both Calvin and Luther believed in infant baptism.

I think you better find a different issue.

I too believe in infant baptism. I do not believe in infant baptismal regeneration nor did the Reformers. Let’s try to stick to the Bible. We have other threads to discuss extra-biblical sources. This is a bible thread.

 

[mikeledes]

Paul describes this alien righteousness in another way. Paul does not share the same view of the sacraments as what is taught in official Roman Catholic Theology. I also think Paul only acknowledges two biblical sacarments, and not the 7 sacarments taught by Roman Catholicism. If I’m wrong, please quote Paul.

Romans 10

Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Would you mind posting the Roman Catholic gospel by using the 13 Epistles of Paul? I don’t think it can be done. In a bible debate, it really doesn’t matter what someone claims what the Church Fathers or Augustine believed. What matters is what Paul and the other Apostles in the Bible taught and believed.

Can you please explain how this verse supports an imputed alien righteousness? I find it strange that if such a concept were clearly taught in Scripture, that learned men and sainst would somehow overlook it for 1, 500 years. This is especially true in the case of Augustine, whom Calvinists love to cite in support of their doctrine and even refer to Calvinism as “Augustinianism.”

Paul says the following regarding baptism:

Romans 6:3-4

3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

This reaffirmes waht is stated in Acts 2:37-38

**37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. **

Baptism represents the means ordained by God to confer His gift. All of the sacraments are means God has chosen to confer His gifts. The fact that these means are used to receive the gift does not make that which is being received through the sacrament something earned or the equivalent of works righteousness. For example, you have the following verse from

2 Timothy 1:6

6For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

How was the gift of God received? Throught the laying on of hands. The fact that Timothy used the laying on of hands to receive the gift of God does not make that which was received any less a gift.

BTW, I don’t think we should limit ourselves to the epistles of Paul when discussing Christian doctrine. The gospels and the other epistles are also sources of Christian doctrine. Can you conclusively prove that the Holy Spirit is God using only the epistles of Paul? I think that if we are going to discuss sacramentology, then an epistle like James or a gospel like Matthew is not any less authoritative then Paul.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I too believe in infant baptism. I do not believe in infant baptismal regeneration nor did the Reformers. Let’s try to stick to the Bible. We have other threads to discuss extra-biblical sources. This is a bible thread.

Martin Luther, the first of the Reformers, believed in infant baptism and baptismal regeneration.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[ryanoneil]

Thanks for posting Scriptures by the Apostle Paul. I don’t think you posted anything that would support the 7 Roman Catholic sacraments as they key to salvation. In contrast to the sacramental way of salvation, I think Paul has an extremely high view of salvation by faith… to the point of teaching grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone. I think Paul only discussed two sacraments, but viewed these two sacraments different than Roman Catholic theology. Consider Paul’s thesis statement of his most important Epistile.

The verses you’ve provided have nothing to do with “faith alone.”

As I’ve said before, you will always find faith and good works together. Faith must also be an “obedient faith” and a “work of faith.” Obedience means persevering in good works to the end.

Romans 1:16-17

The Righteous Shall Live by Faith

Through him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith, for the sake of his name, among all the Gentiles, (Rom 1:5)

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, although you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted. Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness. (Rom 6:16-18)

For I will not dare to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to lead the Gentiles to obedience by word and deed Rom 15: 18)

Now to him who can strengthen you, according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret for long ages but now manifested through the prophetic writings and, according to the command of the eternal God, made known to all nations to bring about the obedience of faith, to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ be glory forever and ever. Amen.) (Rom 16:25-27)

Gal 2

Justified by Faith

You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Gal 5:4-6)

Ephesians 2

By Grace Through Faith

that he may grant you in accord with the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner self, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the holy ones what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. (Eph 3:16-19)

not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, willingly serving the Lord and not human beings, knowing that each will be requited from the Lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. (Eph 6:6-8)

Do you understand why I write that I don’t think Paul taught Roman Catholic theology?

No!

All faith (initial and perfected) are gratuitous gifts from God, and not earned or merited by any human action. God effects everything, both the willing and the achievement. But God also requires human action, which is necessary to perfect our faith.

This saying is trustworthy. I want you to insist on these points, that those who have believed in God be careful to devote themselves to good works; these are excellent and beneficial to others. (Titus 3:8)

 

[East_and_West]

I KNEW that this thread was started to further the protestant agenda under the guise of having a “Christian bible study”. Too bad some of the people in here are not listenting.

 

[cfrancis]

Martin Luther, the first of the Reformers, believed in infant baptism and baptismal regeneration.

God Bless,
Michael

When Reformed says:

I too believe in infant baptism. I do not believe in infant baptismal regeneration nor did the Reformers. Let’s try to stick to the Bible. We have other threads to discuss extra-biblical sources. This is a bible thread.

I think it’s best not to confuse him with the facts