Featured Vicar of Jesus Christ?

i of ii

DHK,

No, I do not care what kind of numbers "you" drum up. Why? Because you are appealing to Sola Scriptura. Therefore, your numbers have no bearing on the validity of your doctrine. This is why little churches like Westboro Baptist can be way off the mark when it comes to doctrine and an application of Biblical principle according to somebody like Al Mohler, for example, yet still remain beyond correction of any kind. Numbers simply don't matter to someone who claims Sola Scriptura. This is why my Baptist friend's friend who rejects "Faith Alone" and anything St. Paul wrote is utterly convinced of his position despite the fact that he and probably less than four people on the face of the Earth agree on these matters. So it is that, as I've been saying "Sola Scriptura" guarantees nothing. In fact, it convicts when a person's right and it convicts when a person's wrong. I on the other hand have a basis for appeal to numbers. Why? Because I am not appealing to the unBiblical doctrine of SS but to the Catholic Church, the one Jesus Christ established which covers the Earth. That Church is global and its number of members is one (of the many things) which plays a certain role in attesting to its validity. To use a Biblical image, Christ said the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed: "Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches." In a similar way, we see that Christ's Gospel took root in human society itself and grew to a great Church in the New Covenant in His Blood. So it is that the success of the Catholic Church (in terms of its flourishing of faith despite the problems that accompany any institution) represent the presence of the Holy Spirit working in her.

It teaches what it says. I am not the one making it out to contradict other Scriptures. For I do not hold to a hermeneutic which allows such a things on account of the "one mouth" through which Tradition and Scripture speak within Christ's Church, the provision the He instituted like a Great Ark for the maintenance of the Gospel over the course of centuries. Indeed, the Ark of Noah is an Old Testament type of the Catholic Church which would one day be established by God not for the protection from dangerous waters, but from sin.

Faith "alone" isn't supported by this text. Faith is. But to attempt to scrub the face off of one side of a coin to gain some sort of theological upper hand by championing the image on the other side of the coin is to do something senseless. This is why elsewhere St. Paul says "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." There in that passage St. Paul describes both sides of the coin, the faith and the love which, as two graces from God, cannot be wrenched apart from one another for the sake of the maintenance of one's basis for self-security. Also, as I cited earlier, 1st Corinthians 13:3 states "...and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." Here again he affirms the necessary love which must be seen as essential to the faith life and anything but seperable from it for the sake, of all things, of a novel doctrine. And there are other passages like these which support the Catholic position, which is the position of Christ's Church zealously guarding the proper reading of Scripture as it's been handed down.

Grace alone? Yes. Christ alone? Yes? Faith alone? No.

So consider it this way: That passage is addressing the question of performing works of the law precisely for the purposes of the merit they represented. St. Paul puts the question to rest by clearly affirming the idea that we can't "earn" our salvation, period. We receive faith by grace. That faith, though, being something which has enlivened us, can't be seen as something which can then just sit there. With it comes with a share in the Christ life. We become animated as new creatures in Him. If we are now in Christ, how could we avoid performing acts of charity? So to properly read the text you've cited, you must see that St. Paul is speaking of works of the law or legalistic works people imagine as somehow meritorious in the "earning something for myself" sense of the word. This is why no man should boast. But notice, you said faith "alone" while St. Paul's words don't say that. And in Romans 3:28, when Martin Luther placed that word in the text when it was not found in the source text from which he translated, he basically made the same argument as you're making. The bottom line though is that while Luther actually added the word to his translation that was published, you're practically carrying on under the presumption that you're right. But you haven't proven that your inference is justified by either the text or St. Paul's broader theology. And in light of James 2:24, which is very clear, it is your understanding of this text which should be adjusted to match James 2:24 and not the other way around. For you have denied the clear and direct fact of James 2:24 for the sake of your inference concerning St. Paul's meaning here in Ephesians. This isn't letting Scripture interpret Scripture. This is preferring one reading of Scripture over another and then dismissing the clear, direct, and unambiguous text of another Scripture for the sake of the maintenance of one's preferred doctrine. So it is that you uphold every word of Scripture and leave it as your final and ultimate authority except for when you don't.

This passage is talking about "believing" upon the Lord. This passage doesn't say a single word about your conception of the doctrine of Faith Alone. Christians read this passage for 1,500 years without thinking "Oh, this teaches faith alone!" We believe upon the Lord. That entails a host of things. But it doesn't entail your preferred doctrine.

Notice what you did here. The Scripture says "whosoever believeth in him" and you translate that as "Whosoever has faith in Him and faith alone..." Do you see what you're doing? The Bible did not say what you just said it did. Again, you hold to the words of Scripture as your ultimate authority except for when you don't. Just as is the case with the word "alone" or "only" and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, so you continue to read those words into these texts to uphold your other preferred doctrine. I used to do the same thing, until I recognized that the Scriptures weren't actually teaching what I had been taught.

But I do care about the entirety of Scripture and I have pondered these things. I started out agreeing entirely with the quote often attributed to Martin Luther where he allegedly said that this doctrine is the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls. I have pondered the Scriptural verses as they're written and in my heart and mind. And I allow the light of clear and unambiguous passages to shine upon the less clear passages. So it is that I accept James 2:24 at face value and understand St. Paul's references to "works" in Ephesians 2:8-9 as works by which someone would seek to justify himself by adherence to "works of the law." Whereas, your reading violates one (James 2:24) for the sake of the other, the reading I am presenting violates neither, but brings them to harmony. It is you who is suggesting that James 2:24 violates the totality of Scripture. Indeed, for you it does. Therefore, you just ditch it and make it out to "teach" the precise opposite of what it flatly states.

 

ii of ii

Yes, this other translation makes it a both/and just like the other translations. It can be said that we are justified by faith if faith is understood as something alive and vibrant, as something that isn't just put on a shelf to represent one's eternal assurance of salvation. Your citation here does nothing to alter the meaning of the passage. For without committing an injustice, one cannot make a Scriptural passage out to say the opposite of what it says no matter how many "translations" one tries on for size.

This translation contradicts the notion of "Faith Alone," as well.

We are talking justification here, not other peoples' opinions of you. Whose pronouncement matters? You're making this passage out to be a teaching of what "people would say" and not as being written as an divinely inspired Epistle written to the brethren for the purposes of doctrine, reproof, correction, and teaching. You're unjustified in making this blunt statement of holy Scripture (which, incidentally stands in perfect harmony with Matthew 25:31-46) out to be an answer to the question "What will the the neighbors say?"

Yes, it was, as I mentioned there in that doctrinal treatise which Dr. Martin Luther decided that he was justified in placing that little word "solus" in his translation, when it wasn't present in the source text from which he was translating. And, like I said, like you he saw himself justified in doing so because he believed the doctrine to be found there. Also, notice what you're doing. You're attempting to use your perceived context in which Holy Scripture was written to make it say the opposite of what's recorded. So much for Sola Scriptura. The fact that you identify the Epistle as a "practical book written on practical Christian living" doesn't mean it's okay for it to teach doctrines which are false or that you're justified in believing the opposite of what it clearly and flatly states. Again, my only point was to prove that you don't believe in Sola Scriptura when it really comes down to it. You believe in your doctrines and seek to match Scripture's message to them. My Baptist friend's friend is a bit more realistic with his position. For he doesn't just adjust St. Paul's teaching to match James 2:24, he gets rid of St. Paul altogether, in his mind, for the sake of upholding the true doctrines of Scripture. His is a Sola Scriptura which follows itself wherever it leads. This is, again a demonstration of why GK Chesterton said that if a man were to live for 1,000 years he'd end up an agnostic or a Catholic. Notice what you're doing. You're attempting to unwrite the words of Scripture. You're attempting to use Scripture not to interpret Scripture, but to invalidate Scripture for the sake of the maintenance of your preferred doctrine.

Another way to read this statement would be to say that the two things are the two sides of one coin of grace. And that works wrought in the charity of Christ are inseparable from the faith of a believer. Not only do you go so far as to make James contradict other inspired authors, you go so far as to make James contradict himself. Again, so much for Sola Scriptura.

DHK, I used to think all of this was clear. I then realized it wasn't. Now I'm pointing out to you the fact that it's not as clear as you think and, after explaining why Scripture means the exact opposite of what it states, you turn and tell me "it is not as clear as you thought it was." Then you go on to say that my understanding (and that of the Church) is "purposefully lacking." Here I am the one allowing James to speak and you are telling me that because I don't agree with your strained reading my perspective is "purposefully lacking." DHK, I didn't write James, the inspired author did. On one hand you fault Catholics for clinging to unBiblical doctrines. And in this case you fault them for clinging to them when you don't want to.

I don't agree with you here, DHK. At the end of the day, precisely because it's complicated and there are many things in Scripture which ignorant and unstable men wrest to their destruction, I rely upon the Church Christ founded to ensure that my understanding of the Gospel is consistent with the gospel preached by the Apostles. This is exactly what St. Irenaeus did, as well. Sola Scriptura, however, is not an orthodox Christian doctrine. This is what it leads to (and I used to read Ray): http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/ray_comfort.htm

You prove it to your satisfaction. But your intellectual satisfaction isn't the solid foundation of Christian orthodoxy. And notice what you said "I can prove it through the Scriptures." What's present in that equation? DHK + Scripture = right doctrine. That's a combination that does not have the Holy Spirit as its guarantor. And it's why by attending church you're maintaining the appearance of obedience to Hebrews 3:17. You're maintaining a certain illusion of obedience. But the moment you came to disagree with a pastor, having swayed from the true Bible teaching (in your view), he'd cease to be your authority. So it is that you hold to Sola Scriptura, and so it is that "when I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me." Which means that the foundation of your faith life is Scripture + your mind.

These statements beg the question. For they are all conditioned upon the validity of the very doctrine which you've yet to demonstrate was revealed by God: Sola Scriptura.

Thanks, DHK, for your time,

Herbert

 

steaver,

Thanks for acknowledging this. Might I infer that you consider (Roman) Catholics to be Christians? For if you're acknowledging the fact that we are both Trinitarians, it seems to follow that you'd classify us as "Christians." If so, thank you, for not everyone here would consider us to be Christians.

But this is how I see your statement: I see your holding to Trinitarian theology as your having retained a very fundamental aspect of Orthodoxy. GK Chesterton, an adult convert to Catholicism once said this: "In all probability, all that is best in Protestantism will only survive in Catholicism; and in that sense all Catholics will still be Puritans when all Puritans are Pagans."

What we Catholics believe is that all of Christ's truths come to us through the Church of which He is the Head. So where you hold to Trinitarian theology, you hold to a truth of the Catholic Church which was always taught universally as an apostolic doctrine. On the other hand, there are those areas where you have (that is, assuming you're not a Catholic) lost some element or component of the genuine orthodox Christian faith. Again, a Catholic holds to this view because the Church is that one provison on Earth which was instituted by Christ as the principle of unity of faith, sacraments, and Christian governance. The Bible "alone," however, has no such divine sanction.

I am quite familiar with Calvinism as my Grandfather's brother was a beloved Reformed minister here in West Michigan. My Grandfather, as the eldest of eight boys, however, went to Moody upon returning from military service in WW2 and thus left the Christian Reformed Church. However, growing up in my family and in West Michigan, I have learned much of Reformed Theology. Many of the Baptists with whom I used to attend Church were themselves Five-Point Calvinists and I learned much from them although I never went so far as to have "all five petals on my TULIP." 8^)

Also, look at what the Catechism teaches about the initial grace of justification:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification...

Elsewhere we find:

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.

Yes, and we are bound to the teaching of Scripture. We preach the one and only way to Heaven. At the same time, we don't believe that it's possible to, according to what God has revealed to us, presume to be capable of determining just how His grace will be poured out and whom will be its recipients, that's all. To do so would be to hold God accountable to His teaching which was presented to us for our knowledge's sake, not His. So, again, I am not presuming anything about anybody's final status just as St. Paul said "As for me, it matters very little how I might be evaluated by you or by any human authority. I don't even trust my own judgment on this point." And continues, there at the opening of First Corinthians with this: "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God."

There have been times in the Church's history, indeed, even among the Apostles, when the paradox of God's love and exclusivity have caused problems. But the Church, though it strives to uphold the Gospel, has grown in self-understanding in various ways according to the principle of the Development of Doctrine (something about which John Henry Newman wrote quite nicely).

I am not denying the exclusivity here. I am not arguing with Scripture. What I am stopping short of (with the Church) is the process of pronouncing a declaration concerning the identity of those persons who are in or out according to my personal evaluation of their spiritual status. I can certainly pray and hope that the same mercy by which I have been made to be "in Christ" could possibly extend to those who don't make a public profession of faith (that satisfies my intellect). For it was Christ who, from His cross, called out "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." I join my hope to that intercessory cry proclaimed by the Lord during His Passion.

Again, I am right there with you saying "Yes, they identify that there is an 'in' and an 'out.'" What I won't do is violate St. Paul's exhortation there at the beginning of his first letter to the Corinthians which tells me, again to "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God." I refuse to presume to know who is and who is not saved. It is my duty to preach the Gospel and the only door to Heaven, which is Christ. But I most certainly do not have the capability to determine who it is who occupies either of these two categories as it is not my place to do so.

Does that sound fairly reasonable to you? If not, why not?

Herbert

 

The Catechism goes wrong at this very point. If Grace is merely 'help to respond to God's call', then we are not saved by Grace Alone QED.
Yet earlier, in a post to me, you said you believed in salvation by grace alone. Rolleyes

 

Robots don't need "help" they need "better programming".

Free will - intelligent life forms like People need "help"

 

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN - received Him not" -- which can only happen in a free-will model. Because there is no such thing as the robot-maker reprogramming the robot - but then the robot still does not work -- unless the maker is defective.

 

Rom 10
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

 

Not every group is willing to offer "open communion" toward Baptists. For example the RCC does offer open communion to the Eastern Orthodox... do you think the RCC offers open communion to Baptists?

 

Very well. Numbers don't really matter to me either. I am used to standing alone. I am a missionary. I have been to places the RCC has not, nor has any other trace of Christianity. I have stood alone and preached the gospel to those who have never heard with simply me and my Bible. Therein is the essence of sola scriptura. What else would they believe? There is no other option, no other authority, no need to introduce anything else to those who have never heard of Christ before. The Bible is all-sufficient in order to introduce a Christ who is all-sufficient to save them from their sins.

Churches like Westoboro are off the mark because of sin, not sola scriptura.
They have not rightly divided the Word of Truth (2Tim.2:15), have gone down the wrong path, and have come to false conclusions concerning God:

--The above is not true according to the Bible. A false premise leading to a false conclusion. God hates the sin but he loves the sinner, and there is no person he would ever reject from coming to him, including the homosexual. I don't think you will find a person here who agrees with that church. Thus your comparison with it is totally irrelevant.

And therein lies your a priori false assumption which you, for some unknown reason, declare as true, without rhyme or reason.
1. The Catholic Church is not the true church.
2. The Catholic Church was not established by Jesus Christ.
3. The teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the teaching of Christ not in agreement with it.
How can you say the things you say; assume the things you assume when all the evidence is to the contrary. This is why sola scriptura is so important. The Bible provides the evidence that the doctrines and teachings of the RCC are absolutely wrong. One by one they can be listed and shown to be not only man's invention but anti-biblical. How then can it be Christ's Church? Impossible!

Christ's Church would not be involved in one sex scandal after another.
Christ's Church would not be involved in pedophilia and homosexuality.
Christ's Church would not be involved in the persecution and murder of millions (middle ages).
Christ's Church today would not be in perpetual decline selling off church property to pay for legal bills and because of poor attendance. But yet you call this "Christ's Church"

Percentage of US Catholics drops and Catholicism is losing members faster than any denomination.
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/...-losing-members-faster-than-any-denomination/

In the years since World War II there has been a substantial reduction in the number of priests per capita in the Catholic Church, a phenomenon considered by many to constitute a "shortage" in the number of priests.
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/vicar-of-jesus-christ.96127/page-13

An Honest Look at Catholicism’s Decline
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2015/01/an-honest-look-at-catholicisms-decline/

These headlines are everywhere. It is not "Christ's Church." It is a business organization that is run by man, a religious organization, one of the largest in the world, whose "Deposit of Faith" is contrary to what the Word of God states.

That it is not as global as you think should speak volumes to the propaganda that you are being led to believe. I just gave you an example of a place where I preached where there was no influence of the RCC or of any Christian influence. There are others.

The Holy Spirit worked in the apostles not in the RCC. The RCC was not around in the time of the apostles. It did not exist then. Its doctrines run counter to the doctrines of the apostles. You are demonstrating that now through an odd interpretation of James 2:24, an interpretation that no evangelical would ever accept.

That is like saying: "There is no god." It teaches what it says. That is what it says. But you don't and won't consider the rest of the context of Psalm 14:1 (the book of James or even chapter two).

The Tradition of Man doesn't teach God. It is God that teaches man. God left his handbook of instructions, his revelation to mankind. Man is not to add to what God has left to him. Jesus said:
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
--But he left only condemnation for the traditions of men.

 

Paul doesn't contradict himself. You haven't looked at the passage carefully.
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--Salvation is not by works. It is by the one who does not works but simply believes or has faith.
It is a contrast between works and faith. He that worketh not, that is does no works.
Rather, he that believes (believes alone without works) is justified. How can it mean anything else but faith alone? It plainly denies works. Read the entire chapter.

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
--Abraham could not use his works to bring glory to God. What brought glory to God?

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
--His faith! He believed God. That belief or faith is what justified him. There were no works involved. Then Paul states the verse I quoted to you.

It is all or nothing in Eph.2:8,9. Be consistent. If it is grace alone it must be by faith alone, otherwise your exegesis is inconsistent.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith..."

Not by works of the law, works of righteousness (Isa.64:6), or good works of any kind. Salvation cannot be earned by any kind of works.

Faith is trust, confidence in another. Even little children have faith in their parents for protection and provision. Jesus said: Except you be as these children you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. He was speaking of their simplicity of faith.
The woman with an issue of blood followed Jesus thinking if only I can touch the hem of His garment I shall be healed. And so she did. Jesus turned and said: "O woman, great is thy faith. and she was immediately. She had confidence that Christ, the Great Healer, could heal her, and expressed her faith by touching his garment.
A Roman centurion asked Christ to heal his daughter. He exercised faith unlike others in that he told Christ He could do it from where he was and not to bother to come all the way to his house. Jesus told all that stood around him that this man had more faith than all that were in Israel. He put his faith or confidence in Christ as the Great Healer.

That comes as a result of salvation, not part of salvation. After the centurion believed then he gave praise to God and did "works of charity," as you put it. It was "faith alone" that saved him.

They do say that.
For by grace are you saved through faith.
Through faith (and that not of yourself) That means faith alone.
Through faith (it is the gift of God), not something you can work for. A gift is free.
Through faith (not of works) Very clear. It is not of works.
Through faith (not of works lest any man should boast. Paul emphasizes it all here by saying that if one would think that their works (of any kind) should think they could earn salvation, then they would have something to boast about. But they don't. Jesus paid it all.
--It is through faith and faith alone. There is enough evidence there to convince anyone of "faith alone."

It matters not a whit to me what Luther did. It is what does the Scripture say?
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
--This is an obvious verse which says "faith alone." Why don't you accept it? It has nothing to do with Luther. Nothing was added.

Here is the Geneva translation of the same verse which was translated also in the 16th century ca. 1560, a translation that Luther had nothing to do with:
(Geneva) Therefore we conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Lawe.

The Greek word for believing, the verb, is pistew. The noun, belief or faith is pistis. As you can see both are related. The verb "to believe" means "to have faith." It is a matter of translation.
Strong's concordance states:

πιστεύω, pisteuō, pist-yoo'-o
From G4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
--Thus the verse is speaking of "faith alone." That is all it is speaking of: "faith" and nothing else.

See above. "To believe" means "to have faith." It can be translated either way.
The Bible doesn't have to say it "your way." The faith "alone," is understood.
When a guest comes to my house and I say, gesturing to a chair, "Please have a seat," you want me to say: "Please have a seat here and only here," when the obvious is understood.

No, you have allowed the Catholic teaching of one verse to obscure your mind to the teaching of the totality of Scripture. You are misinterpreting the rest of the Bible based on a misinterpretation of James 2:24 not even bothering to consider the context of either chapter or book. Based on that one verse you have misinterpreted the rest of scripture. That is very poor hermeneutics.

 

In places like Africa and South America, the Church is growing by leaps and bounds.

In Central America, there is an active effort among non-Catholic Christians to evangelize and, to their credit, the non-Catholic Christian missionaries are doing a better job at recruiting new Christians in Central America than the Catholic Church is.

In the Western World; America and Western Europe, the Church is "struggling" to expand because so much of secular Western values are opposed to the Church. However, most of the Baptist churches in my area are over 2/3 empty on Sunday. The Catholic Churches are packed at every mass and new churches are being built all over our state.

Again, over all the Catholic Church is growing faster than any other church but you ignore those statistics There will always be places in the world where the Church's growth is stunted for one reason or another, but there are always going to be regions that welcome the Church with open arms.

As far as the sex abuse, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There is plenty of evidence that Baptist pastors have been diddling kids for years and their churches have covered it up. It happened in my Baptist church and it took the local press exposing the lies told by the leadership of the church to finally get the members of the congregation to act to bring about the removal of both the pastor and the youth minister who both ended up in jail.

http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

 

Martin,

So the fact that the help is "free and undeserved" is inconsequential? That's not how I read and understand this passage.

Further, the word "help" doesn't denote autonomy or independent activity which originates in the self. To help simply means to provide assistance. In this case the assistance is the thing that effects the result, namely our "move" toward God. Imagine a person helplessly stuck at the bottom of a pit, tied up and bound and incapable of climbing out. If, though gagged, he offered a muffled cry for help, and someone above heard him and said "I'll help you!" would this mean that the guy tied up in the pit was actually about to get out on his own? Most certainly not. Further, after the victim was saved from his ordeal and he met up with his friends he might say "Oh my! I was gagged, bound, and cast into a pit. Thank the Lord, someone heard me crying and helped me! He climbed down into the pit with a rope, unbound me, and helped me out! I am so thankful!" Would his friends say "Wait a minute here, he 'helped' you get out of the pit? Think again, bro! Use a better word there why don't you?"

The particular word choice is, again, completely consistent with the theology presented here. For what the Catechism teaches here is that man is incapable of moving toward God. He, therefore, "moves" us by His grace toward Himself. He doesn't destroy our nature in so doing, however. That is, He doesn't unilaterally force Himself upon us, thus rendering us automatons. His grace perfects our nature, which, according to the order of Creation, was oriented toward Him but was broken and ruptured on account of the Fall. So he calls us to repent. Incidentally, because of sin, that is something we cannot do. Therefore, he "assists" us in doing that which we could not even begin to do on our own but according to which we are rightly ordered by His divine act of Creation.

Consider it this way, the fact that we are "helped" doesn't mean we're operating on our own steam. The fact that the help is "gree and undeserved" is itself significant. Further light is shed on the Church's teaching in the Catechism, paragraph 1987, which reads "The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man." This paragraph demonstrates the fact that man's movement toward God is itself a thing brought about by his free and gratuitous grace. So when Christ calls us to repentance, we certainly do so "but not according to our own power." Rather, we are "moved by grace" toward him and thus achieve a state we'd not be able to attain without this initial grace of justification, which although you don't approve of the word "help" being used, is still a clear teaching which indicates the fact that man is extricated from a position entirely by a prevenient grace which does not originate in Him. That is, something that couldn't respond or move on its own is being moved as, in itself, an act of grace. So my statement that we are saved by Grace Alone stands. For without God's initial justification, itself effected by a gratuitous, free, and prevenient grace, we would still be sitting there in our sins and would not move at all. So indeed, we are saved by grace alone.

Thanks,

Herbert

 

Good point, Walter. Having grown up Baptist, I can't count on two hands the cases of sexual abuse that I have encountered. I know many victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Baptist ministers and youth leaders, etc. Sexual sin is a tragedy for the entire Christian witness. May God have mercy upon us and all of our Churches for scandalizing the pure name of our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ.

Thank you, Walter.

Herbert

 

Just not in real life.


Projected growth rate for the RCC through 2050 is expected to about half of what it was from 1980 to today.

"Europe has only 23 per cent of the global Catholic population, but has more parishes than the rest of the world combined (55 per cent) "

====================================================
from - http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...ft.happening.in.the.catholic.church/55152.htm

CARA projects that the number of Catholics will continue to grow, but not at quite the same levels as seen in the last 35 years. They estimate that the Catholic population will increase by another 372 million by 2050, or 29 per cent.

A concern for the future is that while the size of the flock has grown, overall there has been a 17 per cent decline in the number of priests. In total in 2012 there were 393,053 priests for the world's 1.2 billion Catholics.

Both priests and parishes (church buildings) are unevenly distributed globally, with higher numbers in the regions seeing least growth. Europe has only 23 per cent of the global Catholic population, but has more parishes than the rest of the world combined (55 per cent) – even though the number of parishes in Europe has decreased by 12 per cent. Regular church attendance is higher in Africa too, with about 70 per cent of Catholics attending Mass weekly, compared to 20 per cent in Europe.

Europe also has one diocesan priest for every 2,597 Catholics compared one to 7,223 in Africa. But while Africa and Asia have a healthy number of men becoming priests (numbers have more than doubled on both continents), Europe and the Americas struggle to keep up with the number lost through death or defection each year.

"A growing phenomenon within the Church is the use of African and Asian priests in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere where there are too few native priests to staff parishes," the report said.

===================================

Christianity Today reported last year that the Seventh-day Adventist church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world.

The SDA church has grown by 400% since 1980. The RCC has grown 57% since then.

 

Having been in some of those 3rd world areas I know what it is like. They will flourish for awhile. But if the the churches dry up in the west so will they. They cannot exist without the financial support of the west.

 

My friend,
Either something is 'all of grace' or it isn't. If it isn't, then it is partly of grace.

You're floundering about a bit here, Herbert. To continue with your rather tortuous example, if this chap is gagged, bound and in a pit, and then the other fellow comes and ungags and unties him- that's great, but he's still in the pit. He's been helped, but he hasn't been rescued. He has to do the last bit himself. That is what the Church of Rome teaches. Christ will take you so far but the rest you must do yourself. That's not what Christ does.

'I waited patiently for the LORD; and He inclined His ear to me, and heard my cry. He also brought me up out of the horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet on a rock, and established my steps.
He has put a new song in my mouth- praise to our God' (Psalm 40:1-3). He does it all!

So according to the Church of Rome,
It's not Grace Alone, because I have to finish what grace starts.
It's not Faith Alone, because I have to have works as well.
It's not Christ Alone, because you are 'born again' at your baptism and are dependant on the 'sacraments'.
It's not Scripture Alone, because we have our traditions.
It's not to the Glory of God Alone, because if I have to do something and the Church has to do something, we have to get part of the glory.

But the word of God says something different:

'For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.
But when the kindness and the love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us [He didn't 'help' us; He saved us] through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that having been justified by grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Grace alone, Faith Alone, Christ alone, according to the Scriptures alone, to the Glory of God alone.

But it's not 'Grace Alone,' is it? The Catechism also says, 'The Church [sic] affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. 'Sacramental grace' is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament' ('Catechism of the Catholic Church' (1994). Para. 1129). So it's grace plus the sacraments. Leaving aside baptism for the moment, the believer must come to the 'priest' to have his salvation renewed as Christ is offered up over and over again (contra Hebrews 10:12-14). He is dependant on the priest to pronounce him forgiven at Confession. And just where are these priests in the N.T.? The only priests I can find are either Jewish ones or the Priesthood of all Believers.

 

If you let me know where I contradicted myself, I could attempt to either clarify or acknowledge my problem. All I was attempting to acknowledge there was the idea that it is appropriate that we allow the clear passages to shed light on the less clear passages. I wasn't saying anything other than that.

You're attempting to find a way to make one precede another. But does the heads precede the tails? Inherent to real faith are the works of charity which cannot be separated according to some intellectual abstraction. Consider this perspective. Or this one.

You may not accept the position of Catholics in this regard. But it is consistent, reasonable, and consistent with the Scriptures. Since I cannot direct to you non-reference apologetical works b/c of the forum's restrictions, I will try to represent what Catholic writers say in response to an interpretation such as yours to James 2:24:

Catholics see two categories with regard to faith:
1) The faith of Galations 5:6- St. Paul's faith working through charity or "faith formed by charity" according to the phrasing of some writers.
2) There's also faith which is not formed by charity. James 2:19, for example, would be an example of faith NOT formed by charity.

Therefore, with certain qualifications, a Catholic can say we're saved by faith (That is, as long as the faith referred to isn't divorced from Christ's charity).

In order to really engage the Catholic position, you'll have to demonstrate that these two categories I've presented are themselves illegitimate for some reason or another. This, as I see it, will be impossible to do in light of Matthew 25:31-46 and 1st Corinthians 13:2 and other verses. For where a Catholic can reconcile those verses with Ephesians 2:8-9 as well as James 2:24, one who demands that faith alone is how things are done cannot do so without doing what you're doing: Denying the bald pronouncement of James 2:24.

I will accept that assessment when you can give me a quarter. But I want the heads alone. No tails, please. ;^)

You're building your theology around the chronological arrangement of things, instead of the charity that is in one's heart. If a person, again, were tied down and in love with his wife but unable to hug her, would it really do to get all legalistic and quibbly over the fact that the love in his heart "precedes" the hug? Would that make sense to build your understanding of human love according not to one's status in Christ and instead according to the particular incidental circumstances of his situation?

Notice how you just tracked back chronologically from an acknowledgment of the fact that we'll be judged by our works to the saving faith which preceded them. Again, instead of basing your soteriology upon the importance of whether or not someone is "in Christ" you've built up a complex and disjointed Biblical equation which interprets into meaninglessness some verses so that you may affirm your preferred doctrine. Therefore, the "judgment" you acknowledge is nothing more than symbolic. So you're payig lip service to the Biblical notion of being judged by your works despite the fact that you've adopted a complex theology to deny that very reality made so poignant by Christ himself in Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 22:12 and reiterated by St. Paul in Romans 2:5-11.

Again, without a principle by which human opinion may be distinguished from divine revelation, there is nothing that can reconcile our two views. Catholics believe that Christ instituted the Church for just that purpose. So to consider my reading as eisegesis and yours as exegesis is to beg the question. For you're presuming the validity of Sola Fide (and Sola Scriptura) in order to justify the conclusions you've reached which you set at odds with the teaching of the Catholic Church. What I've said to DHK elsewhere becomes apparent at this point in the conversation: Sola Scriptura is not a principle by which unity might be reached for it assures one of his rightness when he's right and it assures him of his rightness when he's wrong, as well. This is why GK Chesterton, recognizing this problem, said: "The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally. The Catholic refers it to something that can say something, to the living, consistent, and continuous mind of which I have spoken; the highest mind of man guided by God."

Thanks,

Herbert

 

Martin,

I am going to be tied up for the next few days so I wanted to get this in yet tonight. Pardon me for my upcoming absence. God willing, I'll be back, though!

I know that people seek various assurances. Such assurances led John Calvin, for example to come up with a very rigid, consistent, and systematic theological system. The Catholic Church avoids such things. The Church certainly upholds principles. But oftentimes, the Church stops short of attempting to apply them. For such is God's role.

In this case, it seems as though you're presenting things in zero-sum terms. To present something in zero-sum terms without having first demonstrated the zero-sum conditions of the situation is to commit a logical fallacy. I reject your Either-Or fallacy. For in God's economy, things more often operate according to a Both-And dynamic. Today is the Solemnity of the Annunciation, which provides a good case in point for my position. In the case of Christ's Mother, Mary, the Angel Gabriel came and announced the plan God had in store for her. She responded, saying "Let it be done unto me according to your word." In other words, Mary said "yes" to God. For God wouldn't force Himself upon Mary. She co-operated with God. Can she "boast" for having done so? By no means. But did she really and actually express her will in harmony with the Divine will? Most definitely! Amen.

Similarly, we can participate in something that is already perfect when we are encountering a non-zero-sum situation. For it is according to the gracious participation in the divine life of God by which St. Paul wrote the following: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church..." It is only according to a non-zero-sum theology that such a statement can make any sense. We know that there was nothing lacking in the perfect sufferings of Christ. Still, by grace, St. Paul offers his sufferings up for the sake of the body.

I am obviously not a scholar. I've never been to seminary. I can't read Greek. I can speak to you as a man, though. And men flounder. I have certainly floundered a bit in my life. Nothing new here! Sorry, though, for the torturous example. But I think it makes a bit of a point worth considering. Oh, and just because I didn't finish the whole thing didn't mean the trapped individual got out of the pit alone. The guy who saved him had lowered himself down with a rope to unbind him. Then he tied the rope around the guy's waste and pulled him out as the guy just hung there limply. ;^)

Speaking of pits!

To suggest, though, that this Psalm is more Baptist than Catholic or more in line with your theology is not really quite realistic. I'd say it's perfectly in line with the Catholic Faith.

I have a family, thank God. I have been with my wife for 23 years. We have five children. We don't do things "alone." The principle of subsidiarity (starting at Paragraph 1878) as it's outlined in the Catechism, as well as the Biblical Christology of the Catholic Faith in which we're understood as members of His Body, present a picture of disciples, not in competition with their Lord, but in harmony with Him through incorporation in His Body, the Church. So Faith, Scripture, Works done in Christ's Charity, Sacraments (themselves graces), all of these things are like the bricks in one pyramid whose Capstone is Christ and which together represent one, cohesive thing made with, in, and through Him. Everything in the order of grace is directed toward God's glory. And the Church is His Body. He, its Head.

I still say that the word "help" shouldn't be a sticking point in light of the fact that nothing demands or requires that it be interpreted the way you seem to be interpreting it. Further, the Pelagian heresy was put down by the Catholic Church a long, long time ago. Check out what Canons 5 and 6 from the Council of Orange (AD 529) say and see if they put your concerns with the word "help" to rest:

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

It was Christ who said "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." The Church, according to her apostolic faith, guards what was entrusted to her according to the power of the Holy Spirit. So it is that the Church teaches that which Christ taught.

Martin, this is what I'd consider to be an old canard. There is one sacrifice of Calvary. And just as that one Sacrifice is everpresent before the Father (Revelation 5), so is it made present for the sake of the Church. It is the one and only pure offering (Malachi 1:11), re-presented here in time. Christ is not resacrificed. That is not at all what the Church actually teaches, nor does it logically follow from any of the Church's doctrines.

Okay, this represents another can of worms and since I'll be gone for a few days I don't want to get too much going. But let me just say this: God is not bound by the sacraments, though we humans are. God can forgive whomever He wishes whenever He wishes, period. The normal means of accessing forgiveness is first in one's heart, and then as a member of Christ's Church, through the ministerial priesthood. Firstly, the priests in the New Testament were the Apostles who travelled, baptized, cast out demons, spread the Gospel, performed miracles, spoke in tongues, forgave sins through the remission of sins that came with Baptism, etc. Priests were called "presbyters" in the New Testament. For example, if you'd like to see an example of one of the seven sacraments being offered in the New Testament, read this: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters (priests) of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." (James 5:14-15)

God bless, Martin-

Herbert

 

I believe Herbert would admit that this was also his own view of the situation as a Baptist.

Which is why I believe the "sola scriptura" topic would be useful rather than every-topic - and Herbert initially agreed with that. Yet oddly enough when we got to the point of looking at the details of how sola scriptura works - he decided not to pursue going into a discussion of how the Bible led him out of the Baptist church and into Catholicism.

Posting various Catholic Canons cannot be how Herbert read himself into the Catholic church - from the Bible.