The Catholic "Salvation"

[Brother Adam]

Originally posted by DHK:
posted by Stephen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />..When one starts with the gospel of Jesus, I believe it is inevitable that a catholic view of salvation will be developed. We are saved by grace, justified by faith and works. Separate the faith from the works, and it dies. We can take no credit for our salvation, because bboth the faith and the works are a result of God's grace being operative in our lives....

When one starts with the Bible I believe it is inevitable that the Bible view of salvation will be developed. We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of works (Eph.2:8,9). Works have no part in God's work of salvation.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you, both of you, for illustrating the result of private interpretation, and why the scriptures specfically forbade it.

 

[Stephen III]

D28,
Thanks for responding.

You said:

In other words, he sounds exactly like your basic, hiearchially *trained*, catholic apologist

Sorry, I don't think that labeling something as a cookie cutter response is dealing with the issue. I apologize that the points made don't seem novel or necessarily unique to you. But I don't see the need to apologize that the argument has been consistently presented. Much to your frustration it appears.

You said: [QUOTE ]the catholics are simply including in their justification explanation the works that naturally flow from out justification for the rest of our lives. ?

The point being that the evangelicals agree with that, so why the fuss?

[/QUOTE]

First things first. What are you saying that we are in agreement with? The Catholic believes that justification is typically a process over ones lifetime. Hence the scriptures about perserverance: (1 Tim 4:16) " Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."

or
(Heb. 10:36) You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.

or
(James 1:12) Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

Etc., what you seem to be saying is that justification (that is: the way that God sees us as his adopted and holy sons and daughters created in the image of His son Jesus Christ and members of the mystical Body of christ etc.)is an event that happens instantaneously at some moment in time. This seems obvious and evident in your next quote:

The fuss is that although catholics may say it that way, to quiet us, they do not really mean it. If they meant it, then they would agree with us when we say...

"Yes, works flow from our justification, but we are only referring to justification in the sense of our standing before God. The complete justification that occures the instant we enter into a faith relationship with Christ. We are not referring to how our justification in the sense of how it plays out in our lives".

Do you now see that the Catholic believes that this justification before God is something that most likely is an on-going transformation that allows for our constant perservering in the ways of the faith? Note I do not specifically preclude the scenario that one can once and for all become justified in God's eyes. But the specifics of that scenario would not be from the Catholics perspective a typical scenario, whereas the Evangelical would say it not only is typical but is actually the ONLY way we become justified.

So please drop the angle that we Catholics are just parroting some party line, and all the while not appreciating the differences between the two camps in this regard. It may help to also note where we are in agreement. Which I think David Currie did a comendable job. If he did not do justice to the Protestant perspective I would like to see where his description is deficient. I for one do not wnat to assume that his portrayals are complete.

you continued:

But they do not. They still argue that we are not justified through faith alone regarding our initial justification at the beginning of our christian walk.

Because it is not biblical to do so. We are justified (a process)by faith and a lifetime of good works. How pray tell would YOU coalesce the passage of James2:14-26 in you theology of sola fide.

God Bless
Stephen

 

[Stephen III]

Adam wrote:

Thank you, both of you, for illustrating the result of private interpretation, and why the scriptures specfically forbade it.

I'm typically thicker skinned than this, but I do hope you appreciate the quote you attributed to me was in fact from David Currie's book. I have as of yet heos hou now( )(that is until now- without implying that I have presently or intend to do so) addressed DHK directly.

I just do not want someone attributing the well thought out and presented material of Mr. Currie's book to someone like myself.
God Bless
Stephen

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Brother Adam:
Thank you, both of you, for illustrating the result of private interpretation, and why the scriptures specfically forbade it.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You have a warped sense of what is "private interpretation." Over and over again the Bible commands us:
"Study to show thy approved unto God"
"Search the Scriptures"
"Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures" (not catechism)

The Bible teaches us to study, on our own, the Word of God.
Private interpretation is being forced to take one organization's, one church's, or even one's individual's interpretation, taking away the freedom and responsibility that each one of us have before God to study the Scriptures (and interpret them) for ourselves. This is where you get a cult from--private interpretation.

The J.W.s--the private interpretation of Charles Taze Russell.
The SDA--the private interpretation of Ellen G. White.
The Mormons--the private interpretation of Joseph Smith.
The Catholic Church--the private interpretation of the magesterium forced upon the entire church. There is no soul liberty. It is contrary to the Word of God.
DHK

 

[Brother Adam]

Of course, none of those churches claim that their members cannot study the scriptures or search the scriptures.

No church or believer today holds a secret book of theology or doctrine written by Jesus Christ or Father God or the Holy Spirit. All doctrine comes from the writing of man. All doctrine has scriptural support. And all doctrine makes the claim that its scriptural support and logical conclusions are better than all other interpretations.

The scriptures do not give the garuntee of the ability for all believers to interpret the Bible error free.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Brother Adam:
Of course, none of those churches claim that their members cannot study the scriptures or search the scriptures.

In all of those churches, like the Catholic Church, whether or not their members "can" study the Scriptures becomes irrelevant. They can only believe what their "authority" tells them to believe, not what they have found to be true according to their own study.

No church or believer today holds a secret book of theology or doctrine written by Jesus Christ or Father God or the Holy Spirit.

We do; it is called the Bible.

All doctrine comes from the writing of man. All doctrine has scriptural support.

All doctrine does not have Scriptural support, as has been amply shown by various threads: Perpetual virginity of Mary being one of them. The assumption of Mary is another, purgatory, baptism of infants, salvation by speaking in tongues, confession of sins to a priest, immaculate conception of Mary, etc. These doctrines have no Scriptural support whatsoever.

And all doctrine makes the claim that its scriptural support and logical conclusions are better than all other interpretations.

All doctrines don't even make the attempt to have Scriptural support because they know they cannot. They are based solely on their "authority's" decrees or writings. Some deny the deity of Christ. Some make Mary as a god. Some worship idols. Some just make up their doctrines as they go along, with no basis in Scripture at all.

The scriptures do not give the garuntee of the ability for all believers to interpret the Bible error free.

The Holy Spirit has promised every believer the power to interpret the Scripture, and give illumination as the believer requires. Each believer becomes a priest before God; he needs no other priest to go through; no other intercessor. Now, if you don't have the Holy Spirit residing in you, and if the Holy Spirit does not bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God, then the Bible says that you are carnal and still in your sins.
DHK

 

[Brother Adam]

"They can only believe what their "authority" tells them to believe, not what they have found to be true according to their own study."

Likewise in the Baptist Church: If I say to my church "I worship only Buddha", I am forced to make a choice- adhere to the doctrines of the Baptist Church or be told I"m going to hell and kicked out of membership.

"We do; it is called the Bible"

Wrong, the Bible does not interpret itself. The examples of interpreting that take place in scripture are when Christ explains a parable. How to understand "This is my body, this is my blood" is left up to man to interpret.

"The Holy Spirit has promised every believer the power to interpret the Scripture"

If you say so. I've read through the New Testament at least 7 or 8 times. I've yet to find the verse that says each believer is enabled to flawlessly interpret scripture and is protected from ending up in error.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Brother Adam:
Likewise in the Baptist Church: If I say to my church "I worship only Buddha", I am forced to make a choice

More than that... if I as a Baptist publicly say that I believe infant Baptism is acceptible in a Baptist church, I'm going against the Baptist Distictives, and will get a stern finger shaking from my pastor. I don't have a choice. I as a Baptist am not allowed to adhere to any doctrine except that of a believer's baptism by immersion for members of the Baptist faith.

 

[D28guy]

Stephen,

"Sorry, I don't think that labeling something as a cookie cutter response is dealing with the issue. I apologize that the points made don't seem novel or necessarily unique to you. But I don't see the need to apologize that the argument has been consistently presented."

I was just noting that I've heard this view articulated many many times, and many times sounding like they came from "standard response form" somewhere.

"First things first. What are you saying that we are in agreement with?"

When a Catholic speaks of our justification including a lifetime of living out the "new life" that Christ has given us, including the "putting off of the old man", and the "putting on of the new man".

We agree regarding that.

"The Catholic believes that justification is typically a process over ones lifetime. Hence the scriptures about perserverance: (1 Tim 4:16) " Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."

or
(Heb. 10:36) You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.

or
(James 1:12) Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him."

And we agree with that. That is regarding how our justification is lived out. But that is not how we become justified. We become justified at the moment we enter into a faith based relationship with Jesus Christ. And that is through that faith alone.

" what you seem to be saying is that justification (that is: the way that God sees us as his adopted and holy sons and daughters created in the image of His son Jesus Christ and members of the mystical Body of christ etc.)is an event that happens instantaneously at some moment in time. This seems obvious and evident in your next quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The fuss is that although catholics may say it that way, to quiet us, they do not really mean it. If they meant it, then they would agree with us when we say...

"Yes, works flow from our justification, but we are only referring to justification in the sense of our standing before God. The complete justification that occures the instant we enter into a faith relationship with Christ. We are not referring to how our justification in the sense of how it plays out in our lives".

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. That is exactly how God justisfies us, and that is exactly how God describes our justification as occurring in the scriptures.

"Do you now see that the Catholic believes that this justification before God is something that most likely is an on-going transformation that allows for our constant perservering in the ways of the faith? Note I do not specifically preclude the scenario that one can once and for all become justified in God's eyes."

Then you are going against the grain regarding Catholicism.(and I have no idea wether you are CC or not.)

"But the specifics of that scenario would not be from the Catholics perspective a typical scenario, whereas the Evangelical would say it not only is typical but is actually the ONLY way we become justified."

Yes, that is precisely they way God had designed it, and articulated it.

"So please drop the angle that we Catholics are just parroting some party line,..."

You probably know as well as I do that Catholics are obligated to submit to all of the interpretations of scripture that The Hiearchy decides are correct. The Hiearchy interprets, the Laity submits to it. And from my dealing with Catholics, the arguments of defense they present always have the sound of parroting what they are told. Many many times the same allegories are used, the same statements are made, the same little stories are said to try and persuade. Over and over and over again. I've heard them all a million times.

"...and all the while not appreciating the differences between the two camps in this regard."

Oh, believe me. I am aware of the differences. Trust me, I am.

"It may help to also note where we are in agreement."

Its not hard to do that since there is so little. Once you get past the teachings know as "the trinity", factual and historical truth, and basic morality, well....

"Which I think David Currie did a comendable job. If he did not do justice to the Protestant perspective I would like to see where his description is deficient. I for one do not wnat to assume that his portrayals are complete."

He's probably OK with how he describes us.

I said...

"They still argue that we are not justified through faith alone regarding our initial justification at the beginning of our christian walk."

And you said...

"Because it is not biblical to do so."

I'm afraid it is.

"We are justified (a process)by faith and a lifetime of good works."

We are not. God has cursed that gospel in Galaciens...

God said early on in that book, through Paul of course...

"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from the grace of Christ, to a different gospel wich is not another. But there are some who want to trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or angel from heaven, preach unto you any other gospel than what we have preached to you, let Him be accursed."

Then, as we proceed through the book of galaciens God describes exactly what He is cursing.

And that is any supposed "gospel" that includes anything that we do, or do not do, as contributing to our justification in any way..

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, (being good) but by faith in Jesus Christ. (faith alone) Even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, (faith alone) and not by the works of the Law (being good) for by the works of the Law (being good) shall no flesh be justified."

Which agrees with Ephesians...

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. (faith alone) And that not of yourself (nothing we do contributes) it is the gift of God. Not of works. (nothing we do contributes) lest any man should boast."

Which agrees with Romans...

"But now the rightiousness of God, apart from the law, (being good) is revealed, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Even the rightiousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe (faith alone, only believe)....being justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus...that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (faith alone)...Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the Law."

God couldnt be clearer.

"How pray tell would YOU coalesce the passage of James2:14-26 in you theology of sola fide."

Multitudes upon multitudes of commentaries have clearly shown how they fit together like a hand in a glove.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Singer]

You probably know as well as I do that Catholics are obligated to submit to all of the interpretations of scripture
that The Hiearchy decides are correct. The Hiearchy interprets, the Laity submits to it. And from my dealing with
Catholics, the arguments of defense they present always have the sound of parroting what they are told. Many many
times the same allegories are used, the same statements are made, the same little stories are said to try and persuade.
Over and over and over again. I've heard them all a million times.

I've nearly quoted you word for word for the past two years on here and other forums. It is obvious that there is some kind of instruction taking place for the Cath. who post on boards. They use the same arguments, phrases, scriptures and even the same words of sarcasm.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Seems like there is a confusion in the minds of some people here between the "works of the (Judaic) Law" and "works" in general, particularly those works by which faith expresses itself in love. Taking the New Testament as a whole, it is clear that while the former have no bearing on salvation, we cannot be saved without the latter. This doesn't mean we "earn" our salvation, but that we are to "work out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling since it is God who works in (us) both to will and to do for His good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13)." In Romans, while Paul makes it clear the circumcision and the rest of the Jewish Law doens't save us, he also states that God will give "eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality" (Romans 2:7).

 

[Brother Adam]

"They use the same arguments, phrases, scriptures and even the same words of sarcasm."

There is no other instruction than that of the Holy Spirit. They have something that Baptists can never dream of having: "Unity in the Holy Spirit". Of course they use the same arguments- they are united in their beliefs.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, (being good) but by faith in Jesus Christ. (faith alone) Even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, (faith alone) and not by the works of the Law (being good) for by the works of the Law (being good) shall no flesh be justified."

Which agrees with Ephesians...

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. (faith alone) And that not of yourself (nothing we do contributes) it is the gift of God. Not of works. (nothing we do contributes) lest any man should boast

You are adding to scripture what is not there as noted by your use of parantheses. The "works of the law" is not "being good". The works of the law refer to the Old Testament levitical system of sacrafice which became void when Christ became the Lamb of God slain for all the sins of the world. When this took place levitical law became void and Christ left us with the new covenant and new law by which Christians are to abide.

Good deeds, which are totally different than "the works of the law" scripture tells us "lay a firm foundation". Without them, faith is dead and the spirit is dead. It takes increadible hoop-hopping to declare spiritually dead doesn't really mean spiritually dead.

And "faith" can only be refered to in the sense of "faith alone" if it includes all of the scriptural mandates of faith: Belief, Trust, Obedience, and Commitment.

Christ said that if one will not pick up their cross- they cannot be his disciple.

 

[Singer]

There is no other instruction than that of the Holy Spirit. They have something that Baptists can never dream of having: "Unity in the Holy Spirit". Of course they use the same arguments- they are united in their beliefs.

Adam, consider what you just said.....
There is no other instruction than that of the Holy Spirit. Mike and I are referring to some internal instruction from the Vatican. First you said that the Holy Spirit does the instructing; then you claim Baptists don't have unity. Don't forget that the same Holy spirit that influences Catholics also works on Baptists. We're all unified in that we believe Jesus rose from the dead....Catholics, Baptists, and the unchurched alike. That's what is meant by one God, one Faith and one Baptism. Another name for unified is universal or catholic. It was a sad day in heaven when someone took that term and named his organization by it. Trickery?
Thievery? It has fooled millions thus far.

Regardless, God still offers His grace to them...actually to "whosoever shall believe that Jesus rose from the dead". The rest is dirty laundry.

That simple act of faith (belief) is at work long before there are any fruits from obedience.

Singer

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Are you saying only disciples are saved ?

 

[GraceSaves]

Brother Curtis,

What is a disciple?

 

[Singer]

Oh........ NOW we're getting somewhere !!!!

 

[Brother Adam]

What Grant said. John 3:16 is an incomplete gospel.

It's as bad as Catholics who claim that you must merit justification on your own by doing enough good fruits using the "not faith alone" verse.

Faith involves more than a simple intellectual assent. I've had discussions with folks (and Lee Strobel uses a great example in his book "The Case for Faith") who are now athiests who at one time genuinely believed they fell to their knees and trusted in the Lord with everything in them.

 

[Brother Adam]

Even the demons "believe" and tremble. Faith is more than belief.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Brother Adam:
"They can only believe what their "authority" tells them to believe, not what they have found to be true according to their own study."

Likewise in the Baptist Church: If I say to my church "I worship only Buddha", I am forced to make a choice- adhere to the doctrines of the Baptist Church or be told I"m going to hell and kicked out of membership.

Tell me what is the definition of "Christian" church? Would you accept a Buddhist into your Catholic Church? Why or why not? Why would a Buddhist want to become a member of a Baptist church in the first place? Buddhists normally attend Buddhist Temples. Your argument is totally irrelevant, and goes against your own Catholic policies as well. It is hypocritical.
BTW, we did have a Sikh attend our church. He got saved, and joined our church. The same happened with a Hindu. If this is what you are speaking of, then yes: it happens all the time. We invite anyone and everyone to our church.

"We do; it is called the Bible"

Wrong, the Bible does not interpret itself.

This is where you are definitely wrong. The Bible definitely interprets itself. It is up to us to find what that one interpretation is. That is why so much emphasis is put on personal responsibility to study the Bible for oneself (Study to show thyself approved unto God...2Tim.2:15). Nowhere does it say to study to show your self approved unto your church, catechism, or magesterium. The same verse commands one to rightly divide the word of truth. That means that there is one interpretation, and you need to find out which one it is. "Rightly dividing the Word of Truth" is not forcing your pet doctrines into Scripture when they are not there.

The examples of interpreting that take place in scripture are when Christ explains a parable. How to understand "This is my body, this is my blood" is left up to man to interpret.

The interpretation is clear. It is not even a parable, as such. Jesus was using a common figure of speech that we use almost every day. This is an example when a certain group of people want to force their preconceived ideas into the Scriptures to support their own unbiblical doctrine. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves.

"The Holy Spirit has promised every believer the power to interpret the Scripture"

If you say so. I've read through the New Testament at least 7 or 8 times. I've yet to find the verse that says each believer is enabled to flawlessly interpret scripture and is protected from ending up in error.

Try these ones. I won't post them all because they will take up room. But I will give you the references.
1Cor.2:11-14--teaches that the believer can understand the Scriptures because he has the Holy Spirit; but the unbeliever cannot, because he does not have the Holy Spirit.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The people of a church depend on the pastor to "feed the flock." But who does the pastor depend upon. The pastor "has no need that any man teach him: but a the same anointing teaches him all things." He depends totally on Christ, the Holy Spirit guiding Him through the Scriptures, in order to rightly divide the Word of Truth. It is not the evangelical Christian that has so much dissagreement among themselves, but rather those who deny cardinal truths of the Bible, and have brought unbelief and liberalism into their churches that deny the Word of God, that contradict each other.
DHK

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You mean one of the original twelve, or the "modern" term. As far as I know, there were 12 original disciples.

I see scores of repentant Christians mentioned in the N.T., but nowhere does it say every one of them were disciples.

Am I wrong ?

Edited to add, I missed a page, here. Sorry, Grant.