SPLIT: Catholics have no assurance of salvation

[paul_c]

Question: The Bible teaches that as a Christian, when we die we receive different degrees of rewards in heaven. And, I’d like to know if you could expound on those different degrees, but also, if there are different degrees of suffering in Hell?

Answer by Dr. John MacArthur:

I think “yes” to both of those questions. There will be varying degrees of reward in heaven. That shouldn’t surprise us: there are varying degrees of giftedness even here on earth. To get a good glimpse of what heaven might be like, look at the church. From the moment of your redemption, the Lord put His Holy Spirit within you, and according to I Corinthians 12, He gave you certain spiritual gifts, right? He gave gifts to all of His church. They differ. What are gifts? They are varying capacities for ministry, varying capacities for service to God in His church. And I think the same thing will be true eternally; I think in eternity, we will all be given according to our abilities and according to our faithfulness–varying capacities for glorifying, serving, and worshipping God.

So, I think that it’s going to be based upon two things. One would be the sovereignty of God, who will choose to give as He wills, as in I Corinthians 12, as He gives spiritual gifts in this life to the church, in whatever way He chooses to do that–that’s a sovereign thing. And secondly, I think there is another component, and that has to do with faithfulness here. I believe our eternal reward will be in some way determined by the level of faithfulness we have had here.

Now, there are a number of reasons why we assume this. One of them was this conversation that Jesus had with the mother of James and John, who said, “My boys want to sit on your right and left hand when you come into the kingdom,” and He said, “It’s not for Me to give that; it’s for my Father to give that.” And there He said, there are going to be some people elevated. Somebody’s going to be on my right, somebody’s going to be on my left, and some others are going to be down the line here–It’s not for Me to decide that; It’s the Father. But, then He went on to say the criteria by which that is going to be decided is faithfulness unto death. So, I think the greatest reward in the future is awarded for the most faithful people, and that probably plays itself out in those who were faithful unto death: the martyrs, those who gave their life. You could give your life in living, as well as give your life in dying, couldn’t you? And you know what I mean by that. You could make the self-sacrifice to the maximum extent even while you’re alive, where you sacrifice everything else and be what Paul called a “living sacrifice.”

So, I think there is definitely going to be, in heaven, varying levels of service, just as there are with the angels: there are archangels, and there are cherubim and seraphim, and principalities and powers and rulers, and all of those varying levels of angelic hierarchy. I think in eternity, we are all going to be sorted out within that eternal worshipping community and given varying capacities and varying responsibilities, which are determined by the sovereignty of God and our faithfulness here. That’s why John says, “Look to yourselves that you lose not the things you have wrought, but that you receive a full reward.” It is possible that you could be faithful, and the Lord be ready and prepared to give you a full reward, but by some sin in your life towards the end of your life, you could begin to forfeit and those things would be taken back off the list, added to the “wood, hay, and stubble” kind of thing, and your reward would be less.

What is it? Is it going to be some people with bigger crowns? No. We’re not going to be going around saying, “Hah! I got a big one; you got a little one!” It’s not going to be that. Whatever we get, I believe in the picture of the 24 elders, we take our crowns and cast them at the feet of the Lord. But, I don’t believe they’re going to be anything that’s visible. I think it’s going to be a capacity for serving God fully and completely. I don’t think you’ll have any sense of loss or any sense of missing anything, because each individual’s capacity will be reached to its maximum. But, I think what we want to do is have the greatest capacity for worshipping God, as His sovereignty would give us and as our faithfulness would warrant.

Now, in terms of the other, there will be degrees of suffering. Hebrews 10 says, “How much greater suffering will come to the one, who has trodden underfoot, the blood of the covenant, and counted it an unholy thing, done despite to the Spirit of grace.” To put it simply, it means this: the more people know about the gospel and reject, the greater degree of suffering they will experience–when they trample underfoot the blood of the covenant. That is to say, the pagan who never heard anything about the gospel of Jesus Christ will not suffer the degree that the apostate would, who heard it all, understood it all, and blatantly rejected it all.

Bengoshi, I feel for you. You are separated from the teaching and Apostolic Authority of the Church and so you are left to try to distinguish form a series of commentators who simply offer their opinions. First you give us one that says you will win crowns in heaven with your good works. This one denies that there are crowns and says that the reward will be higher levels of service. If you would just follow the Apostolic teaching, you would know that the reward for Good works is heaven itself and you would be able to reconcile all of scripture…

 

[guanophore]

That just simply means that they weren’t born again in the first place. There’s a good book about it by John Piper that I am currently reading, it’s entitled FINALLY ALIVE. You can download a free PDF from his website, DesiringGod.com.

Yes, a good book.

One of the problems with this perspective is that it denies the Apostolic instruction that it is possible to be saved by grace through faith, then fall away from grace.

 

[paul_c]

Those which the Bible isn’t clear about are the non-essentials. Even the doctrine of election and reprobation/predestination, which we are arguing about is a non-essential one. I mean, we can definitely hold on tho a certain position but it should not cause us to divide on it. Those of the Reformed position would not call Arminians as non-Christians. We are still of the same Body even though we disagree on this issue.

Its surprising that you woulding recognize the fundamentals of the economy of salvation as non-essential doctrine. What is more essential than the truths about salvation?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
My point is that these scholars don’t impress me. They are simply expressing thier own opinions. And yes, I deny the scholarship of those that disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which ultimately has the benefit of Apostolic teaching and authority. Where they disagree with church, they are in error

Well, you are right of course, that I don’t need to be impressed. But I also don’t need to believe anything they write that opposes what the Church teaches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
You ignore the main point of my comment, which is that Jesus clearly said that to earn eternal life, you must follow the commandments. This directly conflicts with you theology of Faith alone.

But he denies the essentials of the quote, which is that to gain eternal life, you must follow the commandments. He does not beleive that works effect salvation, afterall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
I like that you say that you do good works out of love for God. This is how Catholics would describe it as well. But what if you don’t do good works? Doesn’t that mean you don’t love God. and if you don’t love God, how can you be saved?

Which of course means, that you need good works to enter heaven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Fine. So how can you say you are assured of heaven, without putting yourself in the place of God

And of course, if you are following the traditional reformed perspective you quoted above, you don’t know if you have saving faith until you die because you can stop producing good works and apostacize at any time…

 

[guanophore]

But he denies the essentials of the quote, which is that to gain eternal life, you must follow the commandments.  He does not beleive that works effect salvation, afterall.

This stems from a deficient understanding of salvation. The Apostles taught that salvation includes justification, sanctification, and glorification. Our reformed brethren limit their understanding of it to the initial justification.

Which of course means, that you need good works to enter heaven.

yes, but only as “evidence” you are already saved.

  And of course, if you are following the traditional reformed perspective you quoted above, you don't know if you have saving faith until you die because you can stop producing good works and apostacize at any time..

Curious, isn’t it?

 

[Bengoshi]

Bengoshi,
I love this article you have quoted. The author makes the point that you will earn 5 crowns by doing good works in your life, never realizing that those 5 crowns :

• The Crown of Righteousness
• The Incorruptible Crown
• The Crown of Life
• The Crown of Rejoicing
• The Crown of Glory

Are simply synonyms for winning eternal life. Can’t you see that now?

No, they are distinct. John’s Revelation tells us that we will also offer and lay down those crowns to the Throne of God.

 

[Bengoshi]

This is the natural extension of the doctrine that works don’t matter for salvation, isn’t it?

I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean, but I think it is.

 

[Bengoshi]

Why? Do you think it is a problem to exercise critical reading and thinking skills? Should documents not be understood within the context they are written?

Of course not. However, you should also put under the same kind of critical thinking the writings and declarations of the Vatican and not just accept them for being “infallible”.

Unfortunately, the Bible does not contain this principle either, which reveals it to be an extabiblical principle. It was invented during the Reformation, not because of conflicts with Catholics, but because of conflict of the Reformed theologians with one another.

We do accept extrabiblical knowlwdge and teachings; it’s just that our final authority is still Scripture. The fact that even well-respected scholars and theologians disagree on certain issues just goes to show that the Bible has no definitive teaching on those areas.

Like Sola Scriptura, it is not a principle that was espoused by the Apostles, or their disciples.

SS is more of a safeguard against abuses and new doctrines that have crept up within the Church as time went by.

And you base this on your understanding of what you read in scripture? Because there are others who read it differently. This is the problem with making Scripture the final authority. There may be as many different interpretations as there are belly buttons.

Yes. Those who divide on the non-essentials have a spirit of dissension. Let’s take eschatology for example, whatever your position is on the millenium, it wouldn’t really matter for as long as you believe that Jesus is coming again.

 

[Bengoshi]

I am not so sure this is entirely helpful Paul. Our brethren have been separated from Apostolic Teaching and authority for 500+ years. All they have left is Scripture, and they are doing the best they can with what they have. Scholarship is not necessarily bad or wrong just because it is not conducted from within Catholic faith. The majority of this scholarship is consistent with Catholic theology, which leaves us with the portion that is not. We can affirm what is right, then focus on the part that is not. You don’t need to be impressed.

I am not so sure this is true. He clearly believes that the person who is saved by faith will be obedient to the commandments.

From a traditional Reformed perspective, a person who does not have faith that produces good works never had saving faith in the first place.

This is my question too.

Thank you Guanophore. You answered Paul’s objections by properly presenting the Reformed position. I couldn’t have done it any better!

Let me answer his last question, which is yours too. My assurance of salvation comes from God’s revealed Word. I am not putting myself in the place of God but just followed His instructions, so to speak. To illustrate:

God said ‘this is how you can be saved…’
Then I considered and obeyed it.
Hence, I am saved.

God said ‘Have faith in Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross so that you would be saved.’
Then I just did exactly that.
Therefore, I am saved.

So it is God Himself who revealed the way to salvation, through Jesus. That is the best part of being a Christian. All other religions would teach people to do this and that so as to be able to go to paradise or be with some “god” or “God”. But it is only biblical Christianity which teaches that God awas the one who made a way for us to be saved. That God awas the one who actually caused our salvation. That is the difference of Chriatianity from all the other religions in the world.

 

[Bengoshi]

Bengoshi, I feel for you. You are separated from the teaching and Apostolic Authority of the Church and so you are left to try to distinguish form a series of commentators who simply offer their opinions. First you give us one that says you will win crowns in heaven with your good works. This one denies that there are crowns and says that the reward will be higher levels of service. If you would just follow the Apostolic teaching, you would know that the reward for Good works is heaven itself and you would be able to reconcile all of scripture…

He doesn’t deny that we will receive crowns at all. He said “Whatever we get, I believe in the picture of the 24 elders, we take our crowns and cast them at the feet of the Lord.” He may not think that they are literal crowns, but nobody really knows for sure because Revelation is a symbolic book. As to the nitty gritty details, Christians are free to speculate; but the clear truth of Scripture is that we will be rewarded according to our works. Now, how they would differ and in what form, God did not fully reveal it.

Actually, the reward is not heaven itself, but being in the presence of God Himself. Heaven without God is no reward at all. However, it doesn’t mean that God would not give us varying rewards anymore once we are in His presence. The Bile teaches that He will.

 

[Bengoshi]

Yes, a good book.

One of the problems with this perspective is that it denies the Apostolic instruction that it is possible to be saved by grace through faith, then fall away from grace.

Yes, because he’s a Reformed theologian. It’s okay to differ on this issue though. Arminians don’t agree with him either.

 

[Bengoshi]

Its surprising that you woulding recognize the fundamentals of the economy of salvation as non-essential doctrine. What is more essential than the truths about salvation?

It’s just like the question of the chicken or the egg thing. The Reformed and the non-Reformed views only differ on the order of salvation but if you’ll notice, the end result that we are espousing are the same, which is, to do good works. The main difference lies on the “Why” we need to do good works. It is a question of cause and effect. While Catholic and Arminian views, among others, include good works as a cause for our salvation, the Reformed camp, on the other hand, argues that good works are the result and evidence of our salvation. Both however teach and recognize the importance of good works. I can’t say that it’s essential though because there are people who after being in the state of grace, immediately die without any opportunity to do good works.

 

[guanophore]

Of course not. However, you should also put under the same kind of critical thinking the writings and declarations of the Vatican and not just accept them for being “infallible”.

Was there something I said that made you think I did not?

However, the documents that come out of the Vatican are produced by those who sit in the Seat of Moses, and have the authority appointed by Christ to shepherd the flock. Therefore, I approach such documents with a prior confidence that their contents will not lead me into error.

The gift of infallibility does not extend to individuals unless they are in union with the Teaching of the Apostles that was once for all deposited to the Church. Therefore, it is possible that an individual might err, just as Peter did in his role as a shepherd of the Church.

Those theologians such as Barnes are in a tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic faith for 500+ years, so the probability that I will find error is closer to 100%. By that I do not mean that all of it is erroneous, but as I said above to the extent that the contents conform to the Apostolic Teachings I will recognize the Truth.

We do accept extrabiblical knowlwdge and teachings; it's just that our final authority is still Scripture. The fact that even well-respected scholars and theologians disagree on certain issues just goes to show that the Bible has no definitive teaching on those areas.

You make two good points. One is that the Bible was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. This is why Jesus left His flock under the charge of people, not books, however Holy. When definitive teaching is needed, and is unclear from the Scriptures, He reveals this to the Magesterium.

The other good point you make is that it is not efficacious to force the Holy Writings into the role of “final authority”. Authority can be exercised only by persons, not writings. Authority requires discernment, acts of the will, and the ability to take responsibility. The Holy Writings do not posess these characteristics,a nd therefore, cannot exercise authority.

Those who embrace the doctrine of SS end up becoming their own authority, or recognizing the authority exercised by others, under the guise of it being “bible based”. It is still authority that has not been appointed by Christ to decide these matters. That was left to the Apostles, and passed on by the laying on of hands to their disciples.

SS is more of a safeguard against abuses and new doctrines that have crept up within the Church as time went by.

I understand that this was the intention, and it is a good one. However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and SS has unwittingly produced thousands of abuses and new doctrines in the last 500 years.

SS cannot really safeguard against abuses. Knowing and and following the Scriptures can lead one to purity of life, but the abuses caused during the Reformation by corrupt clergymen were caused by wolves among the sheep.

Yes. Those who divide on the non-essentials have a spirit of dissension.

I am sure there is plenty of the Spirit of dissention to go around. However, the notion that there is a standard list of “essentials” is equally deceptive. No such categories are identified in Scripture. And to say that if “Scripture is unclear then it is non-essential” is also misleading, since everyone who reads the Scripture can have lack of clarity about certain doctrines mentioned within that others understand with clarity.

The concept of “essentials”, then as used under the doctrine of SS is another extrabiblical doctrine. These by themselves are not problematic to Catholics, since none of our doctrines come out of the Bible. However, these doctrines are a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. The Aposltes believed that Jesus left them in charge of determining what was essential, and what was not.

Let’s take eschatology for example, whatever your position is on the millenium, it wouldn’t really matter for as long as you believe that Jesus is coming again.

I agree.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you Guanophore. You answered Paul’s objections by properly presenting the Reformed position. I couldn’t have done it any better!

It just goes to show you can teach an old dog new tricks! My Reformed brethren have been very instructional for me here on CAF.

Let me answer his last question, which is yours too. My assurance of salvation comes from God's revealed Word. I am not putting myself in the place of God but just followed His instructions, so to speak. To illustrate:

God said ‘this is how you can be saved…’
Then I considered and obeyed it.
Hence, I am saved.

God said ‘Have faith in Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross so that you would be saved.’
Then I just did exactly that.
Therefore, I am saved.

Yes, I understand the principle. We just have a differnent understanding of salvation, so that when we read the Word, we understand it differently.

So it is God Himself who revealed the way to salvation, through Jesus. That is the best part of being a Christian. All other religions would teach people to do this and that so as to be able to go to paradise or be with some “god” or “God”. But it is only biblical Christianity which teaches that God awas the one who made a way for us to be saved. That God awas the one who actually caused our salvation. That is the difference of Chriatianity from all the other religions in the world.

From our point of view, the concept of “biblical Chrisitanity” is a modern innovation. There are many of the Apostolic Truths that exist withint this modern innovation, such as the one you mention here, that it was God who made the way for us to be saved through the shed blood of His Son Jesus.

However, the Church founded by Christ is not a “religion of the book”, as is often thought by outsiders (this is what the Muslims think of us too). Jesus founded a Church, not a book. That Church then produced the Scriptures, by the power of His Spirit. He never intended for the authority He left with the Apostles to be abolished, or to be replaced by the pages of the book. On the contrary, He taught them “I will not leave you orphaned”, “I will be with you until the end of the age” and “The Spirit will guide you into all Truth”.

 

[guanophore]

As to the nitty gritty details, **Christians are free to speculate**; but the clear truth of Scripture is that we will be rewarded according to our works. Now, how they would differ and in what form, God did not fully reveal it.

Do you find this principle(Christians are frree to speculate) in Scripture?

Dont you find it odd that the HS would wait 1500 years to reveal something? Why would he reveal a Truth contrary to what He taught the church for the first millenium and a half?

  Actually, the reward is not heaven itself, but being in the presence of God Himself. Heaven without God is no reward at all. However, it doesn't mean that God would not give us varying rewards anymore once we are in His presence. The Bile teaches that He will.

Do you think Heaven is something different from being in the presence of God Himself?

Yes, because he’s a Reformed theologian. It’s okay to differ on this issue though. Arminians don’t agree with him either.

Each group having contradictory doctrines, it seems like it would be difficult to “have the same mind”. The Armenian position is actually closer to what the Apostles taught than the position crafted by Calvin.

It’s just like the question of the chicken or the egg thing. The Reformed and the non-Reformed views only differ on the order of salvation but if you’ll notice, the end result that we are espousing are the same, which is, to do good works. The main difference lies on the “Why” we need to do good works. It is a question of cause and effect. While Catholic and Arminian views, among others, include good works as a cause for our salvation

I think this is a misrepresentation of both the Armenian and the Catholic positions on the role of good works. Neither group considers these as “a cause for salvation”. I think this is a common misunderstanding.

All three groups are in agreement that we are saved by grace,through faith, not of our works, lest any man shall boast. Therefore, the proximate “cause” of salvation is by grace. Catholics and Armenians don’t stop reading Eph 2 at v. 9,m but continue into v. 10. We believe that the same grace that produces saving faith in us also produces the good works that God has prepared from the foundation of the world, that we SHOULD walk in them. We consider that these works of righteousness are the purpose for which God has saved us, and cannot be separated from the saving grace that brought us to faith in Christ. The fact that they are inseparably connected to salvation by grace through faith, though, does not make them a “cause”.

the Reformed camp, on the other hand, argues that good works are the result and evidence of our salvation. Both however teach and recognize the importance of good works. I can’t say that it’s essential though because there are people who after being in the state of grace, immediately die without any opportunity to do good works.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

 

[paul_c]

It’s just like the question of the chicken or the egg thing. The Reformed and the non-Reformed views only differ on the order of salvation but if you’ll notice, the end result that we are espousing are the same, which is, to do good works. The main difference lies on the “Why” we need to do good works. It is a question of cause and effect. While Catholic and Arminian views, among others, include good works as a cause for our salvation, the Reformed camp, on the other hand, argues that good works are the result and evidence of our salvation. Both however teach and recognize the importance of good works. I can’t say that it’s essential though because there are people who after being in the state of grace, immediately die without any opportunity to do good works.

Lets be clear. There’s not one reformed view. As you clearly understand, some with the “Reformed” view, have taken the statement that works aren’t required for salvation to the next step, to say sin doesn’t matter. And therein lies the danger…

 

[twb1621]

Please be patient. Your posts are quite long and, honestly, I’ve already answered a lot of them and I just don’t want to repeat myself. The book I recommended to you does talk about Christian unity. St. Augustine himself said that “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”

Haveing one mind does not mean that we exactly all think alike. There are things which God did not fully reveal to us but only those things which He thinks we need (cf. Deut. 29:29). The presence of various Protestant denominations does not necessarily mean that we consider those who disagree with us on non-essential doctrines as anathema or non-Christians. We still consier ourselves to be part of the One body of Christ. Of course, the cults are altogether different for they deny one or more of the essential doctrines of the Bible.

Ben, lets just pick it up from here then. I realize your faith considers itself part of the one body, but scripture does not support anything along those lines where it is not in fullness and union with the teachings of the one Church Jesus founded. The misconception you are presenting here is that you are looking at this massive number of individual interpretations called protestant denominations as “those who disagree with us”, when in fact we do not look at it at all as though that disagree with us, but with Christ’s teachings and Word through the Church He established to bring all His Faithful into one body, one Faith, formed in His Blood as the one source to Teach and confirm all those who would accept Him. Check out the verse again:

1 Corinthians CH1; 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
　
Ben, truthfully, you must be aware you only responded to one fraction of the verse and in that response conflict to the remainder. Being of one mind is just that, believing in the Fullness of His teachings and acknowledging his word, living according to those teachings, retaining our Faith in His gift of salvation. Speaking all the same things is also obvious and by your response you have stated the opposite to this statement but you are not alone, many do with many opinions and all believe theirs is the right one. Of the same Judgment is also clearly taught by scriptural decree which includes the acceptance of the decisions of those appointed to serve Christ in His Church, and without schisms, “from the Greek schisma, is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.”…all parts of the full teachings of Christ which we are to remain obedient to, also according to scripture.
This is not to say you are wrong about everything, but those things you are misunderstanding are what is keeping you from the intimacy you could know in a relationship with Christ that you currently could not comprehend without that fullness. What Jesus said would be revealed by the Holy spirit He declared specifically to the Teachers of His Church.
But this is why there is to be no independent faiths in opposition, not to us, but to His Church which He commissioned His apostles and they their successors as follows:

Matthew CH28; 18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Peace my brother

 

[Bengoshi]

Do you find this principle(Christians are frree to speculate) in Scripture?

No, but since Scripture (or even Catholic Tradition) does not and cannot cover all areas of life, then those areas are left open to the conviction of every believer. An example would be in Romans 14.

Dont you find it odd that the HS would wait 1500 years to reveal something? Why would he reveal a Truth contrary to what He taught the church for the first millenium and a half?

We don’t think it is contrary to what the early church taught and practiced because we get our doctrines and practices from the Bible. In fact, a lot of the current practices of the RCC were not practiced by the early church as can be sen in the book of Acts.

Do you think Heaven is something different from being in the presence of God Himself?

No, it was just to illustrate a point. It was an implication from Paul’s comment. IT wouldn’t be heaven at all if God wasn’t there. The Muslims however believe that heaven is where the virgins are!

Each group having contradictory doctrines, it seems like it would be difficult to “have the same mind”. The Arminian position is actually closer to what the Apostles taught than the position crafted by Calvin.

Because as I’ve mentioned, not all areas of life are covered by Scripture. It is only those which God clearly reveal that we have a complete understanding of (Deut. 29:29).

I think this is a misrepresentation of both the Armenian and the Catholic positions on the role of good works. Neither group considers these as “a cause for salvation”. I think this is a common misunderstanding.

All three groups are in agreement that we are saved by grace,through faith, not of our works, lest any man shall boast. Therefore, the proximate “cause” of salvation is by grace. Catholics and Armenians don’t stop reading Eph 2 at v. 9,m but continue into v. 10. We believe that the same grace that produces saving faith in us also produces the good works that God has prepared from the foundation of the world, that we SHOULD walk in them. We consider that these works of righteousness are the purpose for which God has saved us, and cannot be separated from the saving grace that brought us to faith in Christ. The fact that they are inseparably connected to salvation by grace through faith, though, does not make them a “cause”.

Yes, I was in error to say that Arminians are included. They are Protestants also who believe in salvation by grace through faith. However, isn’t it true that the RCC teaches that works have merit that are needed to be added to Christ’s atoning work? That Christ’s work on the cross was not sufficient?

This was actually the main objection of the Protestant reformers, i.e. the sale of indulgences, mass cards, participation in the crusades, etc. that needed to be done in order to get to heaven.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

I’m glad that we can agree on some things!

 

[Bengoshi]

Lets be clear. There’s not one reformed view. As you clearly understand, some with the “Reformed” view, have taken the statement that works aren’t required for salvation to the next step, to say sin doesn’t matter. And therein lies the danger…

Well, that’s more of the Baptist view espoused by Charles Stanley, which I, R.C. Sproul, Wayne Grudem, nor John Piper do not hold. I was wrong to include Arminians in my post, I only meant the RCC. Arminians are also Protestants who believe in salvation by grace through faith apart from works. Please see my latest reply to Guanophore.

 

[guanophore]

No, but since Scripture (or even Catholic Tradition) does not and cannot cover all areas of life, then those areas are left open to the conviction of every believer. An example would be in Romans 14.

I agree, but we are not free to speculate and form our own convictions on those things that the HS has already revealed to the Church.

We don’t think it is contrary to what the early church taught and practiced because we get our doctrines and practices from the Bible.

Of course you are practicing what you believe is consistent with the early church. I think that all the Reformers were sincere in desiring this. Howver, right doctrine and practice was never intended to be extracted from the pages of the Bible. Right doctrine and practice is to be RECEIVED through the paradosis, from those to whom it was committed. This is what the Reformers lost when they separated from the Apostolic Tradition.

In fact, a lot of the current practices of the RCC were not practiced by the early church as can be sen in the book of Acts.

Can you elaborate?

Because as I’ve mentioned, not all areas of life are covered by Scripture. It is only those which God clearly reveal that we have a complete understanding of (Deut. 29:29).

Yet, even those Truths that have only been revealed in part are still our responsibility to keep. For example, the Apostles commanded that we hold fast to the Word of God, whether it was received by word of mouth, or in writing. Once the Reformers separated themselves from the paradosis, this command could no longer be followed. The attempt was made to replace what was lost by using only the Scripture, but distortions and fractures have continued to occur. We know them by their fruits, and the fruit of SS is separation and division.

Yes, I was in error to say that Arminians are included. They are Protestants also who believe in salvation by grace through faith. However, isn’t it true that the RCC teaches that works have merit that are needed to be added to Christ’s atoning work? That Christ’s work on the cross was not sufficient?

No, but this is a common myth about Catholicism. I recommend the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification to clear up this misunderstanding.

This was actually the main objection of the Protestant reformers, i.e. the sale of indulgences, mass cards, participation in the crusades, etc. that needed to be done in order to get to heaven.

Yes, and rightly so for them to object. But the corrupt clerics that were pandering these ideas had departed from the Teaching of the Church. The Reformers were accurate that these men needed reform, however, they took the matter further and reformed the doctrine of Christ.