What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

[Sarah_Jane]

BouleTheou:

Sarah -

Faith formed by charity is the kind of faith which justifies. That faith alone justifies us. And we are justified by that kind of faith “apart from works.”

Tell me the meaning of Romans 3:28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.”

Sarah, “faith apart from works” = “faith alone.”

BouleTheou

How do you explain this verse?

“Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.” (James 2:24)

 

[JPrejean]

“faith apart from works” = “faith alone.”

= non sequitur

 

[Erich]

BouleTheou:

Tell me the meaning of Romans 3:28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.”

The “works of the law” St. Paul refers to are the works of the Mosaic Law (e.g. circumcision, keeping kosher, etc.) not the works of charity that ought to accompany faith.

 

[JPrejean]

Erich:

The “works of the law” St. Paul refers to are the works of the Mosaic Law (e.g. circumcision, keeping kosher, etc.) not the works of charity that ought to accompany faith.

OK, I’ll go equal opportunity for a minute; that’s a bad Catholic argument. First, it’s not a particularly convincing interpretation from an exegetical standpoint. More importantly, taking that route makes it appear (incorrectly) that Catholics hold that some kind of our actions can create a debt in God, which is nonsense if you following the reasoning of the Council of Orange. Consider this statement by the Doctor of Grace himself:

CHAP. 23 [XIV.] --HOW THE DECALOGUE KILLS, IF GRACE BE NOT PRESENT.
Although, therefore, the apostle seems to reprove and correct those who were being persuaded to be circumcised, in such terms as to designate by the word “law” circumcision itself and other similar legal observances, which are now rejected as shadows of a future substance by Christians who yet hold what those shadows figuratively promised; he at the same time nevertheless would have it to be clearly understood that the law, by which he says no man is justified, lies not merely in those sacramental institutions which contained promissory figures, but also in those works by which whosoever has done them lives holily, and amongst which occurs this prohibition: “Thou shalt not covet.”

– St. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, chapters 22 and 23, Philip Schaff, ed. Nicene and Post-Nicene FathersFirst Series, vol. 5, Hendrickson Publishers, p. 93.

 

[BouleTheou]

Sarah -

how do you explain this verse - James 2:24?

Like this: James 2:24 has a context - James 2:14-26. It is an utter misuse of the passage to say that what is being taught there is that men are declared righteous before God by works. Ever heard of the apostle Paul? Romans 4:1-8, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 3:4-5, Romans 5:1, Romans 8:33, etc? Your “exegesis” of James 2:24 stands the rest of the Bible on its head and utterly ignores the context of the passage. Men are not justified in saying they have faith if they have no works. What does 2:14 say? What good is it if a man says he has faith but has no works? No one is justified in claiming to have faith, claiming to be a follower of Christ, claiming to be a Christian if all they can do is say “I have faith.” We show people our faith by our works and thus justify our claim to being followers of Christ and our claim of having faith by works and not by faith alone. James 2:14-26 could not make this clearer. Just read it.

BouleTheou

 

[jpusateri]

Works of the Law is understood in this sense. If are a servant of a master and do everything you are told to do and no more, will your master be content with you? Yes. Will your master give you a share in his fortune and his inheritance? No!
Luke 17:7-9:

"Who among you would say to your servant
who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field,
‘Come here immediately and take your place at table’?
Would he not rather say to him,
‘Prepare something for me to eat.
Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink.
You may eat and drink when I am finished’?
Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded?

You are not saved by obeying the law (Mosaic or natural law). You are condemned however by breaking the law. For the wages of sin is death. All the good works without faith is useless. You have no relationship with God so any “nice” things you do are nice, but irrelevant for salvation.

All those who have not faith are under the Law. Once you are baptized and are an adopted son or daughter of God, your works are now fruitful. God looks upon fruitful works them as dedicated to Him. Like a parent whose child has tried to give him a present. That present may not be useful or even pretty, but since it was done FOR God, they are looked upon favorably by God.

While both Catholics and non-Catholics admit that there MUST be works, the major difference in theology is that non-Catholics believe that the works are an attribute of faith and proceed AUTOMATICALLY from the right kind of faith. They would say that the works demonstrate that the KIND of faith is a “saving” faith.

Catholics believe that the works themselves are NEEDED in the process of sanctifying the person performing them and are NOT automatic. That is, the act of the will to perform charity has a sanctifying effect on the soul, perfecting the person to be Christlike. Slowly conforming us.

One other comment is that whenever I hear “Faith alone” upon closer examination, it really comes down to:

Protestant Faith = Catholic Faith + Catholic Hope + Catholic Love.

Check out this article: catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0017.html

Here is an excerpt:

But James clearly says in his epistle that faith without works is dead and that we are justified by works (good works, the works of love) as well as faith, working together with faith. James and the Catholic scholastic theologians were using faith in its third, narrowest sense: as just one of the three theological virtues. In this sense, hope and charity must be added to faith for salvation. Paul and the Protestants were using faith in its second, broader sense: as the root or center of all three theological virtues, not as an act of the intellect (as in the Baltimore Catechism definition) but as an act of the heart (in the biblical sense) or spirit or personal center. Both sides were (and are) right, as Pope John Paul II made quite clear to the Lutheran bishops of Germany on his visit there in 1983. In other words, the essence of the Protestant Reformation was a misunderstanding.

 

[RMP]

BouleTheou

Ive read many of your posts, you continually make false alegations against the catholic church. The catholic church teaches GRACE gives us salvation:

Creation is a grace, (natural grace) it is unmerited. How can catholics merit creation itself? You have no response so dont even try. how can a catholic merit his own creation, you cannot merit something if you dont exist. You anti-catholics have no idea about what grace is. We all have natural grace, who doesnt? It cannot be merited. Actual, santifying grace come with baptism, unmerited, a free gift, through water and spirit. You have no argument against this catholic dogma, only your misconceptions of it.

But I see the solution for you. AND I will use Scripture to help you, since that is what you like.

“Not as if we are sufficient to THINK anything of oursleves, as ourselves: but our sufficiency is from GOD” We are actually INCAPABLE of meriting grace.
“I have planted, Apollo watered, but GOD gave the increase.” we are can do nothing, GOD gives us an increase in grace. The Apostolic teaching means we can hear the teacher talk (or scripture read) and not hear the message. “No man can come to me except by the Father, who hath sent me, draw him.” I believe you have intellectual accent, but not spirit to hear the message.

Instead of reading scripture, I suggest you pray for grace, the grace to lead you to truth, no matter WHERE you find it. And I will pray for you too. You too smart a guy to be wasted by illusions about scripture and their false interpretations.
So stop accusing the Catholicchurch of teaching we are saved by works. After baptism we are in grace. In grace we have faith and do works.

 

[BouleTheou]

RMP -

I have not made any false charges of any kind against Catholicism. I have said consistently that Rome teaches grace is necessary to enable us to do good works which merit eternal life on the basis of grace. I reject your accusation.

BouleTheou

 

[Sarah_Jane]

BouleTheou:

RMP -

I have not made any false charges of any kind against Catholicism. I have said consistently that Rome teaches grace is necessary to enable us to do good works which merit eternal life on the basis of grace. I reject your accusation.

BouleTheou

NO.

Good works are the results of the grace that saves us. Grace saves us and not the good works.

 

[RMP]

BT, Obviously, I feel the exact same way about you. But that’s what discussion forums are for my friend. Why don’t you give it a shot? Exegete James 2 for us and show us why I’m wrong

We dont have too. By your own beliefs in scripture, It contradicts faith alone, never asserts sola scriptura, there is no need for exegenesis, why are you baffled?

 

[RMP]

BT, I have not made any false charges of any kind against Catholicism. I have said consistently that Rome teaches grace is necessary to enable us to do good works which merit eternal life on the basis of grace. I reject your accusation.

NO, that is still a misrepresentation of our faith,

I dont think you understand what you read.

Creation is a grace, (natural grace) it is unmerited. How can catholics merit creation itself? You have no response so dont even try. how can a catholic merit his own creation, you cannot merit something if you dont exist. You anti-catholics have no idea about what grace is. We all have natural grace, who doesnt? It cannot be merited. Actual, santifying grace come with baptism, unmerited, a free gift, through water and spirit. You have no argument against this catholic dogma, only your misconceptions of it

BTW, did you pray? Its funny, You wont until GOD gives you that grace yourself. Not by your own merits. Just a point. But revealing. Are you really looking for truth, or a good argumentive fight?

 

[pegrok]

I skimmed alot of the threads. It seems to me that you have had great answers but are not really listening. I was raised Catholic, considered myself evangelical for a while after college, now have been back to the Catholic church for many years. When I was evangelical I was reading & studying the Bible and various books a lot. It was really confusing. I was always looking for special revelation from God, like I needed to have a “ministry” or something. Alot of evangelicals want “ministries” rather than just focusing on the natural course of accepting children and spreading the gospel by example. God lead me back to the Church after wanting a different birth control method and finding out about natural family planning as a fluke after the birth of my first child. When I looked into the scripural basis for why artificial contriception is a sin (study that God only took the life of Onan but not of the others in the same passage that also broke the law of the levrite) and also that all of Christianity believed that it was a sin before about 1930, I realized that the Church was right. It changed my whole understanding of marraige and what life is all about. I am so thankful to God, otherwise I know I would not have had my five kids, I would have had only two. You see you Evangelicals always say you believe in the Bible, but you believe what you have been taught from your ministers/preachers. You don’t really think that every person on earth is supposed to be a scripture scholar do you? You said that Catholics should be studying the Bible, like this would make them come over to the Protestant side? Oh what a joy not to have to try to interpret the scriptures any more! You know, you don’t answer the tough questions about who is the correct interpreter of scripture. You referred to your seminary friend as being “saved”. The once saved always saved doctrine is in error and you should study the history of the doctrine not just pull some verses out of scripture. And there are so many scriptures to contradict the once saved always saved doctrine. Read passages not just verses. Anyway, God bless you.

 

[Robin_L.in_TX]

Personally, I think you are setting up a straw man argument when you insist on an either / or scenario. It is not either Scripture is sufficient or Tradition. There are no Catholic teachings that I know of that are not at least implicit in the two Testaments of Scripture.

Mary had to be sinless. Look at all of the concern with the purity of the Ark in the OT, and the matter becomes plain. Remember Uzziah? What was contained in the Ark? The Bread of Life, God’s Word and the symbol of the High Priest in Moses’/Aaron’s staff that grew? Who is the Bread of Life, Word of God, and High Priest of the New Covenant and where did He reside for nine months? (Reread both the Visitation in Luke 1:39-52 and 2 Samuel 6:4-16).

Infant baptism? When did the Israelites, by God’s command, bring their children into the covenant? At the ripe old age of eight days. Being called by God has always been through grace alone, consent comes as we accept and persevere in our faith, but it is always initiated by God. It is not surprising that most of the baptisms were of adults first, as it was a New Covenant, but most households in that day included spouses, children, servants, and slaves. It is not surprising that we continue to baptize all ages.

Mary as the New Eve makes perfect sense if you are aware of Jesus as the New Adam, and are conversant with Davidic Kingdom (and Middle East) customs whereby having one wife reign over all the others would lead to intrigue and possible death. It was the Queen Mothers who ruled as Queen instead. Who did Abimelech go to in order to try to wrest the kingdom from Solomon? The Queen Mother–Bathsheba, though she did not gain her request. Like so many OT foreshadowings, they were perfected in the new when the Queen Mother asked her Son to provide wine for a wedding feast. Jesus is the head of the Church, Mary is the Mother of the Church. Look to Revelation and the end of John at the foot of the Cross for hints of this.

As for Liturgy not being in the Bible, I suggest you reread Exodus and Revelation again. It is all there, though not spelled out. Priestly robes, incense, altar and sacrifice, OT readings, psalmic readings, even the prayer over the bread and wine is very similar to ancient Jewish formulations. Why would God not spell it all out? Where in the OT do you see the Jewish liturgy spelled out? Ours is very close to theirs with the addition of the once for all sacrifice, the todah sacrifice that Jesus gifted us with.

I really don’t know why God chose to do it this way, but I do know that all through the OT and even the New, that we are told that we must have eyes to see and ears to hear.

St. Peter even warns us how St. Paul’s words were misinterpreted, and Luke showed us how the Ethiopian need Nathaniel to interpret Scripture for Him. So even the Magisterium is found there. Just as the Trinity is present at Jesus’ Baptism, which he tells us to use to save people and bring them into the fold.

There is so much subtlety in the teachings and truths of our faith that can be traced to Scripture if we only know how to see it, but we will never see it if we insist on forcing issues into either/or arguments. God is not bound by arbitrary man-made distinctions such as either’or and neither should we be if we are seeking God’s Truth rather than our own.

I am not so proud as to think that I completely understand our theology and make no mistakes, but I do beg mercy as I am only a homeschool mom who has no theology degree, just a strong desire to know and love my Creator and Savior better.

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX

 

[Convert97]

BouleTheou asked: What am I missing by believing that all special revelation from God about the Christian faith is in the Bible?
You are missing out on the fullness of Christian faith. This is a question that can be asked only by someone who believes everyone is to interpret Sacred Scripture on his or her own. Without the Tradition of the Church to tell us what Sacred Scripture means we lose the Sacraments. Without the Sacraments, we lose the grace to we need to abide in God. Without Tradition we lose the form and even the sense of worship. And without Tradition, we lose the meaning of how to love as God loves. We are going through a cultural war which has divided Christians on the way to live a Christian life. The debate over same-sex marriage is a case in point. Some Christians say the Bible forbids it, others do not. Who is right? One church speaks authoritatively on the matter. Even my devout Evangelical friends are grateful to the Catholic Church for that.

 

[sparkle]

BouleTheou:

What am I missing by believing that all special revelation from God about the Christian faith is in the Bible?

Thanks,

BouleTheou

You’re missing out on ALOT. That’s the TYPICAL Protestant mindset thinking everything is in the Bible. It’s not. Why, it was 300 years before there even WAS a Bible --you know?

 

[BouleTheou]

Sarah -

Good works are the results of the grace that saves us. Grace saves us and not the good works

Amen!

Congratulations! You’re now a Protestant and are under the anathema of the council of Trent!

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema. BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

Alright everyone, hold on a second.

Does everyone see how simple my question really is? Let me simplify this for you by stating it in a few propositions:

1. I’m an adherent of the Reformation/Biblical concept of Sola Scriptura. What that means is this: I affirm that there exists today one source of fixed and unchanging, God-breathed, inspired, infallible **special [as opposed to general] **revelation in Christ’s Church.
2. Every Roman Catholic I’ve ever dialoged with vociferously denies what I’ve stated in proposition 1 here.
3. Hence, you must believe that Scripture is not the only source of fixed and unchanging, God-breathed, inspired, infallible **special [as opposed to general] **revelation in Christ’s Church.
4. Since you reject Sola Scriptura as a Tradition of men which nullifies the Word of God, then you must be able to answer the question: What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

All of PhiVaz’s lame attempts aside, has Rome ever stated that such-and-such a dogma was taught by Christ and the apostles, is not found in Scripture, is infallible, is God-breathed, and is an essential part of the Christian faith? I am constantly being told that by believing that only Scripture is the source of Christian truth I’m missing out on the “fullness of the truth.” And all I’m asking is: what am I missing? What revelation do you have from God outside of Scripture?

Now, quickly, to preclude common misconceptions:

1. I am not denying that the Church has authority to teach the Word of God.
2. I am not denying that the Holy Spirit guides His Church.
3. I am not denying the absolute necessity of the Biblical offices of Elder and Deacon to help teach the Word of God.

What I am saying is that in the possession of Christians today there is one source of God-breathed, special revelation. Hence, Sola Scriptura - only Scripture is God-breathed. If you deny that, then show me this other equal authority and show me what its doctrinal content is.

BouleTheou

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

Sarah -

Amen!

Congratulations! You’re now a Protestant and are under the anathema of the council of Trent!

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema. BouleTheou

I was hoping someone would catch that. However, nowhere does tht canon say that our good works CAUSE our salvation but only that they ‘preserve and increase justice before God.’ God is consistent in uniting matter and spirit. The distinction between the idea that we can save ourselves by works and that God in his mercy accepts them in cooperation with the Sacrifice of Christ is not subtle.

 

[BouleTheou]

sparkle -

You’re missing out on ALOT. That’s the TYPICAL Protestant mindset thinking everything is in the Bible. It’s not. Why, it was 300 years before there even WAS a Bible --you know?

Listen closely now: Like what? I know you think I’m missing out on a lot - just tell me… please.

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

mercygate -

I was hoping someone would catch that. However, nowhere does tht canon say that our good works CAUSE our salvation but only that they ‘preserve and increase justice before God.’

You know that’s not what the council meant… they were saying we cause our own salvation by good works made possible by God’s grace. Again, a concept found absolutely nowhere in Scripture.

But then again… is that just your private interpretation of Trent, or are you an infallible interpreter of Councils?

God is consistent in uniting matter and spirit. The distinction between the idea that we can save ourselves by works and that God in his mercy accepts them in cooperation with the Sacrifice of Christ is not subtle.

It’s just utterly anti-Biblical. Titus 3:4-5, “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous works we have done, but according to His mercy.” Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works so that no one can boast."
BouleTheou