OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Capitalizing means shouting or hollering milby!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Catholic Church
- Thread starter milby
- Start date
- Status
Capitalizing means shouting or hollering milby!
I need to be banging my head. Hehe
Can you show me where in the Catechism, the official teaching of the Catholic Church, that it teaches that one can “work” their way into Heaven? You can’t, because it doesn’t. The Catholic Church does not now, nor has it ever, taught a doctrine of salvation by works...that we can “work” our way into Heaven.
I have sincere question, if we are saved by faith alone, why does 1 Cor 13:13 say that love is greater than faith? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
I believe, as TS has stated before, that the Catholic Church teaches that 'we are saved by Grace, through faith, working in love'.
Last edited by a moderator:
Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) 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.
Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema.
Scripture does not attribute the justified as meriting eternal life.
Last edited by a moderator:
The only time you actually do see the words faith and alone together in a sentence is in James 2:24, where James says, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. (James 2:24)
How do you explain the book of James.
The bible also says, "Not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather he who does the will of my Father" (Matthew 7:21) shouldn't we assume by that that works are indeed a necessary component of one's faith
Sorry I didn't know that. But if I was shouting it then you should have heard it the first time.
Well milby, I spent so much time answering all the scriptures you gave me that I forgot to come back to this first question you gave.
First, the RCC does not teach that salvation is by faith; they teach salvation is by works. You must keep the sacraments of the church. You must be baptized (definition of the new birth). Baptism is a work. Confession is a work. Praying the rosary is a work. Going to mass is a work. Giving is a work. Partaking of the communion is a work. All of these things are works, and all are required by the RCC. There are many more also, aren't there. The RCC is a religion of works. One is saved by the works that they do, not by faith but by works.
The Bible teaches that one is saved by faith, and faith alone.
Let's look at it:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--Note that there is nothing added after "faith". It is faith alone. Faith stands "alone." We are justified by faith and nothing else. The word "alone" is not necessary. The verse is clear just as it stands.
How was Abraham justified?
Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
--By faith alone. He believed God and God justified him (made him righteous).
Then Paul goes on to explain more about this righteousness.
Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
--If a man works (baptism, confirmation, sacraments, going to church, etc.,) he deserves a reward (a pat on the back by the priest, or possible remuneration). A person who works does not do it for "grace." A person who works for ten dollars an hour does not want a "gift" (grace), but rather a wage, the debt that is owed him.
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--To him that does absolutely no work at all, but simply believes on Christ that man is righteous; that man is justified. Justification comes only through faith in Christ. There are no works involved. Works and faith are at odds with each other. The one who is justified by faith is justified by faith alone. No works can be involved at all. That is the teaching here.
So it is with grace as well.
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
I grant you, this seems to in contrast to what the Catechism teaches, but this needs to be put it in context. Martin Luther was saying that we are so corrupt that we can’t do anything good, of ourselves. Even with grace 'we are as dung that is covered with snow'. So the Catholic Church is emphasizing the fact that we are weakened by the fall, but are still basically good and are capable of good acts. In fact, we are EXPECTED to do good works. The Catholic Church teaches that the sanctity of the Christian is the result of the combination of grace and free will.
I think that much of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, as well as that of the Reformers, came in response to an opposing view and that they often went to the opposite extreme in stating their position. Without opposition there was really no need for clarifying doctrine.
Judged by the standards of sola fidei, sola scriptura, sola Christa, and sola gratia, the RCC not orthodox (and doesn’t pretend to be). I noted the canons of the council of Trent because that is the point where many theologians believe that the RCC officially apostatized.
The doctrine does present the good works that must be performed as possible only by the grace of God. I do think that the gospel is still found in the Catholic doctrine because it is apparent in the creeds that are affirmed by the church. I’d still side with Geisler , though, when he noted that “Roman Catholicism obscured the essential saving truth of the gospel by overlaying it with error and contradicting it in practice.”
Judged by the standards of sola fidei, sola scriptura, sola Christa, and sola gratia, the RCC not orthodox (and doesn’t pretend to be). I noted the canons of the council of Trent because that is the point where many theologians believe that the RCC officially apostatized.
The doctrine does present the good works that must be performed as possible only by the grace of God. I do think that the gospel is still found in the Catholic doctrine because it is apparent in the creeds that are affirmed by the church. I’d still side with Geisler , though, when he noted that “Roman Catholicism obscured the essential saving truth of the gospel by overlaying it with error and contradicting it in practice.”
Thanks that helps a lot.
Lets say a Catholic believes and has faith that Jesus died for their sins and believes. Since they are Catholic they also believe in the works part of it that you mentioned above. Would that person be saved just for the first part and wouldn't it be harmless for them to do the works. You don't think that their God and Jesus is different from the true God that we as Baptist worship and believe in do you?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Thanks JonC. I was headed there myself. But it will not affect Walter's belief!
I was Catholic for 20 years, but not saved. When I was Catholic I believed the things that you spoke of: Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose again, and many orthodox Christian beliefs, as the RCC also teaches.
When someone explained the gospel message to me, it wasn't a matter of intellectual belief of facts already known. Those gospel facts I knew. But when I trusted Christ, and what he did on the cross for me, that means he became my Lord. His sacrifice paid the penalty for my sins. There is nothing, no work that I could ever do, that would merit eternal life. Jesus paid it all. When he died on the cross, one of the last things he said, "It is finished," (John 19:30), meaning salvation is finished. It is completely done. There is nothing more for anyone to do.
For one to say that by their works they can get to heaven, is an insult to Christ. He paid the penalty that I can never pay. I trust in him and in him alone. If I say I must be baptized in order to go to heaven then I say that the sacrifice of Christ was not sufficient. If I say that any work (baptism or otherwise) is necessary for salvation, then I say that Christ failed on the cross. Either what he did on the cross in dying for our sins, shedding his blood, satisfied God in paying the penalty for our sins, or he failed. If he satisfied the demands of God, there is nothing that we need to do but accept the gift of salvation by faith.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--It is a gift. It cannot be worked for.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Okay, let me see if I can address this in a manner that will clear things up for you:
I take it as an insult when you tell me I am ignorant of scripture.
What I said about Calvinism: I was simply trying to say, with slight humor, that I disagree with Calvinism as much or more than Roman Catholicism; why you took that personally, I have no idea.
The "Doctrines of Grace" as you incorrectly term them are most certainly heretical -- they were a minority opinion in the church until and even after Calvin and were unknown and untaught in the early centuries. If you don't know that, you are unlearned (ignorant).
Now I have written none of the above as a personal attack or insult. If you don't believe that, I can't help it. I have told the truth.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Don't be too hard on ol' Luther; he had to pencil that in to counteract the Book of James which he wished was not in the Bible. James clearly states that we are not justified by faith alone but also by works. However, to be fair to Luther, he believed that we are justified by faith alone but that faith is never alone. That is closer to the meanings found in James, I believe.
So, in that sense I believe we are justified by both faith and works because if there are no works present, there is no faith present, works being the evidence of faith, just as the fruits of the Spirit are.
I believe you might agree with this, based on what you have said elsewhere.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
And this is where I would disagree with the Magisterial Reformers and agree with the Catholics and Anabaptists.
Well said!
You are making the same mistake Luther made except from the other extreme.
James DID NOT teach justification by works. What he taught was that justification by faith was not without works. What is the difference? A very big difference.
James is viewing justification pragmatically not theologically. James is dealing with a person not at the point of justification by faith but at the point of profession - "Though a man SAY" and from the point of a POST-regeneration/conversion pragmatic point of view.
Thus James is dealing with from the same point of view that Paul is in Romans 6-8 not Romans 3-5. In Romans 6 Paul denies that justification by faith occurs ALONE apart from REGENERATIVE life and its fruits just as he does in Ephesians 2:8-10 - "saved THROUGH FAITH and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is a gift of God NOT OF WORKS.....created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works".
There is no such thing as a justified but unregnerated human being. Good works are the fruits of regeneration not justification but where there is justification there is also regeneration and thus there will be good works.
However, in regard to justification itself, it is "without works", meaning without OUR good works simply because it is the embracing by faith the good works of Jesus Christ as the complete and sufficient propitiation (satisfaction) of the righteous demands of God.
Now, I know you fella's don't like what I had to say and won't agree with it but you will not be able to overthrow it exegetically and that is really the bottom line isn't it?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
LOL According to you Luther was wrong, Calvin was wrong, Zwigli was wrong, Hus had some issues, Erasmus was still catholic and therefore wrong, Probably John Smith was wrong about somethings, Wesley was wrong, Oliver Cromwell was wrong... Add infinitum. So the only person according to you that is wright on with Jesus is yourself? And the only truth after 2000 years of church history is your progressive view of what you believe scriptures to mean 2000 years after they were written in an American Context of the modern era than from the cultural stand point of Jews and Gentiles 2,000 years ago. Roman's is not looked at by you in the context of which is was written to help Roman Disciples follow Christ because most of the Christian Churches in Rome at the writing of Paul were founded in Jewish Synagogues and they had to deal with Judiazer a very real problem since many of these communities were founded by travelers from Judea bringing a strong Jewish influence to the churches there. And thus your context of Romans Ignore the verses which places the whole book into context "obedience brought by faith". So you pick Pauls argument dealing specifically with those judaizers to deal with their belief that their association with Torah saves them rather than their association with Christ. And thus you ignore the larger view of Pauls writing. Marcion had this issue which is why he only used Paul's letters as his texts.
This kind of reasoning is shallow. We all can quote from Luther where he was wrong. We can all do the same with Calvin, and even with Spurgeon. It is easy to attack a person's life and doctrine. We disagree with all of the ECF, and can show where.
Luther was a Catholic priest coming into the Reformation, got saved because he realized what the doctrine of justification by faith was, and that it was taught in the Bible. When he left the RCC he took much of the baggage of the RCC with him. He had fought the RCC on many fronts in just a few short years. Had he lived longer he would have come to realize more of the truth concerning the canon of Scripture as well. If one takes into consideration how long he was a Christian: from his conversion during the Reformation to his death, it wasn't that long.
He was born 1483.
He nailed his 95 theses to the door in 1517 (saved not long before that).
He was excommunicated in 1521.
He died in 1546.
That means that he was a Christian for only about 30 years in his lifetime.
When he wrote about the book of James he was much younger than that.
If one compares Luther's ministry as a true believer in Christ to that of many full time Christians today who have come from Christian homes, there is a great difference. He had much more to contend with. (and no access to the internet
)
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
There is a big difference between error and heresy. You may believe that the Doctrine
- Status