Okay, here we go. I've been doing some reading. The primary list of books/documents being used for this discussion are as follows:
Faith Alone by R.C. Sproul, Radical by David Platt, The Council of Trent 1545 led by Pope Paul III, The Bible by God, and various other texts as necessary.
Seems to me there is this really big argument that has been going on for a while now between the Catholics and the former Catholics aka the Protestants. I say it this way because, it is important to remember, Luther was Catholic...Calvin was Catholic...and so on and so forth. It is not to offend those who are non-Catholic, but to set as a mental image of where the reformation began. There was a time when, if you called yourself a Christian, you would have been Catholic. Luther set out to bring to light some things about the church that were, for lack of a better word, embarrassing. No one is denying that there was a really B-I-G need for reform. If you haven't read Luther's 95 Thesis, now is the time..go..http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm. Okay, I hope you really did at least skim over that, because it is important.
Notice how, in Luther's 95 points, he doesn't declare The Church to be horrible or damned. What he does is uphold church and its doctrines. He was actually fighting FOR not AGAINST the church. He was supporting, not denying, the authority of the papacy. Luther did NOT set out to break away from the church, or to cause others to do so. What followed was, needless to say, a big debacle.
So, now that we have that out of the way, let's move on to the big issue. What is justification, and how do I get it? Is the argument simply a misunderstanding of language, or is there something more to it? What does the Catholic Church say about it, and what do the other churches say about it? (you might actually need some exedrine to go with that coffee) Don't expect this to all happen in one post, because that just isn't going to happen!!
Let's begin with the Bible. I think that is a really really good place to start. Oh, and I'm using the Revised Standard Version as well as the New American Bible.
First, Jesus gave us all the command, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to God's whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16 Okay, so believe and be baptized...but wait, there is more!! "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day may will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'"
So, in these two verses we see believe, baptize, and do the will of the Father. The scary part is that we can do things in his name, believing in Jesus, and if it isn't God's will, we are sent away. That's what he says, right? So works, obviously, aren't THE key, but part of it. In order to "do" the will of the Father, we have to "do" something!!
Jesus talks alot about fruit, trees, vines, etc. I like the image it brings. You have this beautiful fig tree. It has roots (God) it has even grown some leaves (belief in Jesus) but there is no fruit (works of faith) so it is cursed. It dies. Why? It had everything it needed to thrive and prosper! It chose not to produce fruit. It gave nothing to world.
David Platt, in discussing the passage from Mark 16 says, "We have been told all that is required is a one-time decision, maybe even mere intellectual assent to Jesus, but after that we need not worry about his commands, his standards, or his glory. We have a ticket to heaven, and we can live however we want on earth. Our sin will be tolerated along the way. Much of modern evangelism today is built on leading people down this road, and crowds flock to it, but in the end it is a road built on sinking sand, and it risks disillusioning millions of souls."
Ouch. You mean we actually have to "do" something?? That makes this a bit harder, doesn't it?
Now, I'm not supporting the idea of earning points to heaven. That is not what anybody should be teaching. We have to first have grace to believe. Grace can only come from God, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Grace can lead us to faith, but we have to "do" something. We have to choose to accept that faith, we have to cooperate with God. We have free-will, and that means we can say no.
Once we have accepted that faith, and, through our baptism are adopted into God's family as sons and daughters, then what? James answers that question pretty well in James 2:14-26 (this is long, I know, but some people may not have Bible access right now, and I need to quote the whole thing)
"What does it prophet, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith, by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some will say "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the alter? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. You see that man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead."
So, where does that leave us? What does that mean?
36 comments:
Awesome! This is very interesting. I am going to digest and respond later tonight if I get home at a reasonable hour.
To be honest I have to disagree with you on your view of what Luther’s intentions and meanings where when he wrote his 95 Theses. You have to remember that Luthers 95 thesis was only the beginning of what he would actually say about the Catholic Church ,it’s doctrines and the Papacy. The reason Luther didn’t address catholic doctrine, the Church and the Papacy is because his 95 thesis wasn’t even trying to address those particular things at that time, they were mainly concerned with the indulgences instituted by the Church and Purgatory. His 95 Theses was a response to the jubilee indulgence instituted by Pope Leo X for the construction of St. Peters Cathedral in Rome, that’s what he was actually addressing at that time.. To be truly honest and accurate Luther actually was against the teachings of the church and the Papacy. This was only one little part of the whole big picture of what he actually began to address within the Catholic Church. This is only my opinion so don’t take it personally but it can be misleading if you try to make a case using only his 95 thesis to say that Luther was not opposed to the Catholic Doctrines and the Papacy just because he didn’t happen to mention those things in his 95 Theses in that point and time because if you look deeper into his sermons and lecture notes which I don’t doubt that you have you’ll find that he truly did oppose the Church’s doctrines, the Papacy and the Pope in who he called and referred to repeatedly as the Antichrist!
“So, now that we have that out of the way, let's move on to the big issue. What is justification, and how do I get it? Is the argument simply a misunderstanding of language, or is there something more to it?”
There’s def more to this than meets the eye.....(I promise that was not a reference to Transformers) I think the real issue actually comes down to terms and many other things as well. The Catholic view of Justification(Infused Righteousness) http://www.theopedia.com/Infused_righteousness and the Reformed or “Protestant” view of Justification(Imputed righteousness) http://www.theopedia.com/Imputed_righteousness are the terms I’m referring to. Both views believe in a sinner being Justification but the difference comes in how a sinner is justified which has eternal ramifications.
Personally I don’t see a strong basis in scripture for the Catholic view of Infused righteousness. Without the imputation of righteousness the Gospel isn’t Good News because we could never know if we are standing before God in a Justified therefore a saved state, we’ll have to wait for some ultimate but by no means guaranteed salvation; the Gospel just isn’t Good News if believers may face thousands of years in purgatory(which there is no biblical support but thats another discussion) before they come at last to heaven. Reformers believed that we are justified by faith alone because only faith receives and rests upon the imputed righteousness of Christ alone and appropriates his righteousness as our sole grounds of our acceptance by God. True faith is immediately effectual in securing Justification, though faith works by love and produces the fruits of righteousness, its Justifying efficacy is due solely to its embracing Christ. Saving faith according to the Bible is not only a necessary condition but is sufficient condition for Justification.
cont....
For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, also through the obedience of one man the many were made righteous." (Romans 5:19)
After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (Isaiah 53:5, 11-12).
2 Cor 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Rom 1:16-17 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the POWER OF GOD for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from FIRST to LAST, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
Heb 10:14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Notice the use of the word "made" it is in the past tense. Because we are already seen as forgiven and perfectly obedient in his sight. Then in the second half of the verse we see that we are still in need of being made holy. This "being made" is in the present tense. Because we are in process, we still sin but as we grow in God's grace he is conforming us to the image of his Son. So we are a work in process and are "being made holy”(Philippians 2:13)
Also I need to make this point that without a doubt, imputed righteousness, according to the New Testament canon, does not mean that a recipient can afterwards live according to the sinful nature and not die (Rom. 8:13) or sow to please the sinful nature and not reap destruction (Gal. 6:8)! Also, Paul wrote that we could, because of accepting a wrong plan of salvation, fall from grace and be alienated from Christ to the point that He is of "no value" to us at all (Gal. 5:2,4)!
Philippians 3:4-9 If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. 7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own(Infused righteousness) that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith(Imputed Righteousness).
Here’s a transcription of an opening statement on Imputation and Infusion by Dr. Micheal Horton if you have the time to read it.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/are_we_justified_by_faith_alone.shtml
I need to apologize up front if any of my comments are rude or don’t make any sense. It’s late and I should have already gone to bed.
Dealing with the James verses: When I read these passages what I see is that the faith James refers to in v14 is an empty superficial faith that ALONE cannot save. This is what he defines in v.14 when he says "though a man "say" he hath faith." in this example the man in question is referring to his faith before men not God.. To put it another way this passage is addressed to the one who claims or says or claoms before men that they have saving faith. James is showing that this is a feigned faith because it produces nothing in this person's life. I can say I am an airplane pilot, but one would rightly question my claim if I never flew airplanes. This type of faith that James refers to and the faith that Paul refers are two totally different things! Paul refers to a faith that does save that is not a mere intellectual assent a faith that sees Christ as one’s only hope for salvation. James' last phrase "can faith save him" or in other words can a pretended fake faith that has no effect on a person save them. We both know that the answer is obviously, NO. Also note what scripture actually says about a person who has true saving faith. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a NEW CREATURE(a regenerated heart): old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17) This describes the saving faith that Paul refers to not James. Two different types of faith. James further clarifies the subject by his statement in verse 18, "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith(EMPTY), and I have works: shew me thy (“EMPTY”) faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." He is certainly not saying that works saves, but that salvation produces visible works which actually is the same thing that Paul says in (Phil. 2:12-13; Titus 3:5-8) Likewise, James agreed with Paul that the only condition for inheriting the kingdom was faith in Christ alone ( James 2:5 and also Acts 15 where at the Jerusalem Council James never expressed disagreement over Paul’s teaching that salvation was by faith and not by the works of the law).
This is the key to interpreting the passage. If a person says they have true saving faith, their faith will produce works in their life. Your gonna be able to see their faith in action. The justification spoken of here is not salvation, but justifying one calling himself a Christian before men and claiming to have saving faith when he is not living for the Lord.
Anyways thought I’d add some of my thoughts on this.
Okay, I'm going to first address Hebrews 10:14.
You stated "Notice the use of the word "made" it is in the past tense. Because we are already seen as forgiven and perfectly obedient in his sight. Then in the second half of the verse we see that we are still in need of being made holy. This "being made" is in the present tense. Because we are in process, we still sin but as we grow in God's grace he is conforming us to the image of his Son. So we are a work in process and are "being made holy”(Philippians 2:13)"
You are correct, we are "in process" and we are being conformed into the image of his son. You can't have it both ways. Either we are covered, or we are made. Either we are called through faith to works as commanded by Christ, or we aren't
You are arguing infused vs. imputed righteousness as if the Catholic Church teaches that I can be righteous by my own merit and works. That is NOT what the church teaches. It is ONLY through the righteousness of Christ that we are MADE righteous.
You used Phil 2:13 as example--"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now; not only in my presence but much more in my absence,work our your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."
If I am only covered, and there is not a Holy Spirit within me to make me Christlike, how is God at work in me to work in His good pleasure? And how do I work out my salvation if nothing in me has changed. See, imputed righteousness implies infused righteousness even within its own explanation. That is problem I have with the whole idea. If we are only imputed righteousness--Impute comes from the Latin imputare, which means to reckon or to ascribe--we are ascribed Christs righteousness and we are then seen as if His righteousness belongs to us. Okay, fine, but if we are not then infused with that righteousness--infused is from the Latin infusus, which means to pour into--then how can we regenerate?
How can we be "made" like Christ to "work out" our salvation if we are only using something that is attributed? Infuse also means to instill, to inspire, to soak in the qualities of another. Hmmmm....you quoted Paul saying "not having a righteousness of my own" -- AMEN. It is poured into him from Christ. It isn't his, he is being inspired as Christ's righteousness is inspiring his works and he is becoming like Christ as His soul is being soaked in the righteousness of Christ's blood.
Really think about this. You claim no Biblical foundation...you already gave it. Romans 1:16-17 "For I am not ashamed fo the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also the Greek. For in it the righeousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, 'HE WHO THROUGH FAITH IS RIGHTEOUS SHALL LIVE.'"
He who through faith IS righteous. Not he by faith is covered. Please don't misunderstand! I am NOT saying we can do it on our own. WE CAN'T ACHIEVE RIGHTEOUSNESS ALONE OR BE SAVED BY OUR MERIT. That is not what I believe, nor is it the teachings of the Catholic Church.
There is a LOT of Biblical foundation for Catholic doctrine of justification.
1 Cor 13:1-2 "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging symbol. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and I have ALL FAITH, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." In this scripture, he is speaking specifically of members of the Body of Christ. You can have all of these things--even ALL faith, but if you don't have the centerpiece, the acting and living love of Christ (which can't be had and not shown through works) you are nothing. In John 14:21, Jesus says that if we love Him we will keep His commandments.
You stated in your quoting of Phil 3, that infused righteousness would be "righteousness of my own." I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Also, you stopped at verse 9. Let's keep going. Phil 3:9-16 "...and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law (speaking of old convenant laws) but that which is through faith in Jesus Christ, the righteousness from God that DEPENDS on faith, that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, BECOMING LIKE HIM IN HIS DEATH, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. NOT THAT I HAVE ALREADY OBTAINED THIS OR THAT I AM ALREADY PERFECT; but I press on to MAKE IT MY OWN BECAUSE CHRIST JESUS HAS MADE ME HIS OWN. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature be thus minded;; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to that which we have attained."
Saving faith is active. It does something, it is doing something, it is living as Christ would have us live. I think we agree on more than you think we do...lol
As for James. I really do disagree with you on your explanation in large part I think Luther did too, that's why he dismissed it as "an epistle of straw" and removed it from His original translation of the Bible. James specifically give examples of justification through works of faith, as I quoted in my original post. He plainly says, "man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone." That can't be explained away by claiming he is speaking only of false faith. You go on to speak of a regenerated heart, um..you can't regenerate by something that is only imputed to you. You have to be infused to regenerate. To be a "new creature" you have to have had something happen to your whole self.
I agree with you, as does the Catholic Church, that it is through Christ alone that any of this -- faith and works--can be achieved. Let me quote Fr. Frank Chacon, a Catholic priest and apologist:
"Catholics firmly agree with Protestants that the redemptive work of Christ is complete and all-sufficient. Through his suffering, death, and resurrection, Jesus redeemed everyone; He paid for all sins and made it possible for anyone to be saved. However, we know that not everyone is automatically saved. All Christians admit that people can fail to be saved by refusing to repent, or by refusing to cooperate with God's grace in other areas. Although the redemptive work of Christ is complete, the merits of His redemption must still be applied to each person in order for him to be saved."
Okay, so I was in the shower praying just now, and this came to me. So, speaking of faith and works and how to understand how the Catholic Church views the two. Again, it is not that it is our works. They are works "prepared for us in advance" and done because we are cooperating with God's will, because we have faith. Okay...look at it in grammatical terms. I'm a language person, so this makes sense to me. In Chemistry we have two ways of bringing things together. We have mixtures and compounds. A mixture can, after the fact, be seperated again and each part put back as one piece or one element. For example salt water is a mixture. You can remove the salt from the water after it has been mixed. With compounds, you can't put two chemicals or elements together and then break them apart again in the same form. The two things come together and make one new thing. In terms of grammar, faith and works is a compound subject, or compound noun. It is joined by the conjunction "and," which acts as a plus sign, which makes the two seperate items become one thing. If you were to, after they have been joined, break it apart, it would kill it or make it void. It would be unrecognizable. As James said, "faith without works is dead". When we, as fallen creatures, acknowledge and accept God's grace, we are then gifted with that initial saving faith. We are then, through our own free will, choosing to mesh our will, or allow our will to be infused with the will of God so that we die to self. Faith and works, living and working out our salvation, become one force or compound working together as a new element, and they regenerate our hearts and souls so that we can become righteous through the righteousness of Christ. With that grace and faith infusion, we accept our baptism and act on our faith.
Whew...that was a flood, I'm sorry. It came on so fast I almost couldn't type fast enough to get it all out.
Sorry for any mispelllings...no time to preview.
Can I ask a huge favor? The original post, and the subsequent follow up #2, we about faith alone. And works of love, and salvation through Jesus. How in the fudge did we start debating Luther and his writings?
Can we do that on a seperate post? Seriously! Torrie, did you dead part 2 before you posted? She actually coverd much of what you brought up in part 2. And I would like to be a part of the reformers discussion, but not on a faith alone post.
P.s. I am posting from my phone aand my autocorrect makes me sound like a tard. So please disregard any crazieness that has happened due to typing with my thumbs.
Ok comment box is not letting me comment so I”ll have to split my comment into comments. Sorry. Hmmm I'm def not trying to put words in your mouth I don't take part in doing that kind of stuff when I'm commenting on something or having a discussion. Please don't go accusing me of that!
“You are arguing infused vs. imputed righteousness as if the Catholic Church teaches that I can be righteous by my own merit and works. That is NOT what the church teaches. It is ONLY through the righteousness of Christ that we are MADE righteous”
Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works [Catechism 1212, 1392, 2010]
Justification is a transformation of the soul in which original sin is removed and sanctifying grace infused [Catechism 1987-1995]
.Justification is lost through mortal sin [Catechism 1033, 1855, 1874].
“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” [Catechism 1129]
“By baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as punishment for sin”(p.321 Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994 Liguori publications) “baptism is birth into the new life, in accordance to the Lords will, it is necessary for salvation as is the church herself, which we enter by baptism.”( ibid.p.324)
“If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION ... but that without them ... men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification ... LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Trent, 7th ses., Canon 4)
-If merits and works are not taught in Catholic Doctrine as you have said then why are there Anathemas prenounced on those who do not believe and reject the teaching that performing the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church makes one justified before God?
“If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of Justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema” (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 30. Shroeder, H.J., Tan Books, 1978, p. 46. The Council of Trent was reaffirmed by Vatican I and II --1960)
-So what does this mean for those like the thief on the cross who believed(saving belief) in Christ and was justified by Christ and Christ said to him “surely you will be with me in paradise”! He had no opportunity to be baptized and have all his sins forgiven according to Catholic doctrine. How is it that this man could be in paradise with Christ?
-Or the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 when Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” “Your faith has saved you, go in peace.” He did not say to her your faith and good works have saved you but it her Faith, nothing else, not some intellectual faith but a saving, trusting faith in Jesus is what saved her and made her justified......cont.
If I am only covered, and there is not a Holy Spirit within me to make me Christlike, how is God at work in me to work in His good pleasure? And how do I work out my salvation if nothing in me has changed. See, imputed righteousness implies infused righteousness even within its own explanation. That is problem I have with the whole idea.
Personally I think it’s a far stretch to say that “imputed righteousness implies infused righteousness” because scripture makes clear that our sanctification is based on the sanctification accomplished by the will of God. "By which we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." "For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Heb. 10:10, 14. Everything which attached to us as children of Adam has been abolished. Our sins have been purged and put away (Heb. 1:3; 9:26). Eternal redemption has been obtained for us (Heb. 9:12). And all this is according to the good pleasure of the will of God, to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph. 1:5-8). It is God's pleasure to have a people cleansed of all sin, able to approach Him without the slightest hesitation or doubt. He desires to have a people whom He can regard according to His own estimate of the value of the one perfect offering of Christ — that is, a people upon whom He can look with the greatest of pleasure. And He has achieved such a people by the efficacy of the blood of Christ. Also here’s two points I think one needs to consider:
1.The offerings and sacrifices under the law could not bring the worshipers perfection. But the offering of the body of Christ did perfect the believers.
2 The perfection which they have through the one offering of Christ is perfection of the conscience; that is, they have "no more conscience of sins." This does not mean no more consciousness of their sins. It means that worshipers have such assurance of being separated from their sins and set apart for God by the blood of Christ, that they can approach Him with all the liberty of the angel Gabriel, who dwells in the presence of God. How can this be? Because, by the death of Christ, sins have been purged so completely that in the sight of God not a taint of defilement, not a stain, of guilt, rests upon His people.....cont
Torrie, please, if you are going to argue a point, address the point. If you are going to dispute something I said, dispute what I said. I think you need to read my posts more thoroughly before you respond.
#1 I never said the church didn't teach merit and works, what I said was, and I quote myself, "He who through faith IS righteous. Not he by faith is covered. Please don't misunderstand! I am NOT saying we can do it on our own. WE CAN'T ACHIEVE RIGHTEOUSNESS ALONE OR BE SAVED BY OUR MERIT. That is not what I believe, nor is it the teachings of the Catholic Church"
The catechism points you posted either, a-back up what I said about the teachings of the church or b-are not even relevant to the discussion.
And, if you haven't read the second posting on Justification, please do. It addresses a lot of what we have talked about.
Also, I am deleting all of the Luther comments. I would like for each post to stick to the topic being discussed in the post.
Okay, I have deleted the Luther stuff. Let's stick to topic! I will post something another time in which we can continue to fight the reformation.
Thanks :)
“Torrie, please, if you are going to argue a point, address the point. If you are going to dispute something I said, dispute what I said.”
April I’m sorry if that’s what your thinking but honestly I’ve done nothing but address the points that you have stated. I responded exactly to what you quoted. This is what you said in your last response:
“You are arguing infused vs. imputed righteousness as if the Catholic Church teaches that I can be righteous by my own merit and works. That is NOT what the church teaches. It is ONLY through the righteousness of Christ that we are MADE righteous”
you also said, “The catechism points you posted either, a-back up what I said about the teachings of the church or b-are not even relevant to the discussion.”
They are relevent to what you said. you said that the Catholic Church does not teach righteousness by merits and works and “It is ONLY through the righteousness of Christ that we are MADE righteous”. I responded by stating paragraphs [Catechism 1033, 1855, 1874] that ones Justification can be lost. This means that Christ’s righteousness is insufficient. So how does one become justified again? Which leads to the next point; [Catechism 1212, 1392, 2010] that teach that Justification is furthered by sacraments and works ,how is this so if righteousness only comes from Christ; [Catechism 1987-1995] that Baptism removes original sin and infuses grace, how is this so if a sinner is seen as righteous thru faith in Christ before his sins can be removed by baptism? All of these Catechism are a response and deal with what you exactly said. So how is that not addressing the point? Please if I’m wrong just show me, I mean this in all honesty April! I’m not trying to be difficult, mean spirited or rude! As far as you deleting the Luther comments, not trying to sound rude and I mean this in all gentleness but I think that’s being Intellectually dishonest. The comments where a response to what was said in your post and pertained to that. They where never meant to cause a separate debate or discussion. But this is your Blog and so you do have the authority to delete whatever you like :)
"And, if you haven't read the second posting on Justification, please do. It addresses a lot of what we have talked about."
I actually have read part2 I just haven't had time to post a comment with all my training and I was still responding to your other comments. Well I won't comment anymore on this post then!
Okay, here I go again. Somehow, I get the feeling that I'm running around in circles.
First of all, I'm sorry you feel I am being "intellectually dishonest" by deleting the Luther comments. I would agree with you, but since I deleted my responses as well, I don't think that is the case. I just don't want people who are trying to read a discussion on faith alone having to run down rabbit trails of topics. We will definitely get into the reformers in a post dedicated to that issue.
You keep saying I said the church doesn't teach works and merit. I never said that. What I said was that the church doesn't teach that by MY works and MY merit ALONE I can be justified.
Your catechism posts are not on topic, because they address several different issues. The sacraments, original sin, loss of grace, etc. are their own topic/issues and we will get into those on seperate posts as well. I am not going to go on a rant to try to address all of those things in one posting that is meant to be a discussion on faith alone or faith and works.
I do want to address the one point you made about salvation being lost, based on CCC paragraphs 1033, 1855, and 1874. You stated that, based on those paragraphs we can lose our justification, and that makes Christ's righteousness insufficient. That's not what it says as all. What is says is that man has free will, and that we can choose to turn away from God. We can choose to be a slave to sin. No one can serve two masters, right? If I believed in faith alone, I would agree with your point, but I don't. I believe that we have a choice, and that God loved us enough to provide us with the free will to decide. I still can't be justified without Christ, but conversion is an ongoing process in which, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we 'work out our salvation'.
Im sorry but i'm going to have to split up my comments again. They're too long for the comment box!
Ok you just said:
“You keep saying I said the church doesn't teach works and merit. I never said that. What I said was that the church doesn't teach that by MY works and MY merit ALONE I can be justified.”
First of all I never said any of that! April all I did was quote word for word exactly what you said, which was this,
“You are arguing infused vs. imputed righteousness as if the Catholic Church teaches that I can be righteous by my own merit and works. That is NOT what the church teaches. It is ONLY through the righteousness of Christ that we are MADE righteous”
and I responded by showing through Catholic doctrine, that merit’s and works are taught as a means of furthering justification, you can’t deny this when the RCC teaches that faith is the first stage of Justification then good works and then baptism which according to RCC doctrine removes origianl sin. April I find nothing in Paul’s writings(or anywhere else in the New Testament, for that matter) which teaches that faith is merely the “first stage” leading to Justification. When the church calls faith the “first stage” of salvation, and good works follow in the second stage, it ignores the fact that the scriptures emphatically state that good works have no part in justification. It doesn’t mean that works are not an important part of a believers life because they are and they are a result of a heart that has been justified the holy spirit does that work in us but again they do not justify us. No work that I do could ever contribute to the debt that Christ has ALREADY PAID. Christ’s righteousness is what in the end justifies us!
The Catechism Par [1033, 1855, 1874] actually does mean that a person can lose their Justification/salvation. Again this makes the Justifying Righteousness that comes from Christ incomplete. Scripture makes clear that the debt Christ paid was paid in full. The only thing that you can say of someone who lives in repeated habitual sin is that they never knew Christ to begin with. When Christ justifies us he justifies us to the end it’s a finished work that Christ does.
This runs in to problems with verses like Romans 5:8-9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
1 John 5:18: 18 We know that anyone born(greek translation is gennao-begotten-past tense) of God does not continue to sin; the one who was BORN of God KEEPS him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him.
And Romans 8:28-29 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,a whob have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
You also said, “What is says is that man has free will, and that we can choose to turn away from God. We can choose to be a slave to sin”
Hmmm this actually sounds like Semi-Pelagianism, Definition: The belief that salvation is by God’s grace but the sinner has the ability to cooperate with God’s grace, this is done by the exercise of his will. Also if man has the ability or the free will of choosing to accept Christ. If this is so, then man cannot be spiritually dead(which scripture says man is dead). And God is infinitely holy and man is a sinner, for man to come to the holy God, he must have even a little goodness and righteousness in him, meaning man is not that bad. This is humanism. All evangelical churches loudly denounce humanism, but it really entertains the humanistic will of salvation which really removes one of the battle cries of the reformers sola gratia.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
We are blind: 2Cor 4:4-6 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,”a made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
No one seeks God: Romans 3:10-12 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
April you keep accusing me of not staying on topic but everything I’ve commented on is relevent to the discussion and your comments. I promise no one is trying to use strawmen arguments or Rabbit trails!
That performing the sacraments furthers Justification. This is why I pointed out Canon 4 of the Council of Trent. It makes very plain that the sacrements are nesecerey for salvation. Scripture makes it clear that we are Justified by works apart from the Law and that works are an outpouring of our being FULLY justified. So now the question rises why do we need faith plus the sacraments to be saved?
Small correction, the last paragraph in my last comment was from a previous comment I accidently copied and pasted. Didn't mean to put that in my last comment, sorry!
"If merits and works are not taught in Catholic Doctrine as you have said "
This is what I was responding too, Torrie. You based statement and catechism arguemnts on the above statement. My statement was the merits and works alone are not sufficient.
I won't argue with you what the catechism says. I know what it says, I've read it. The point is, I don't disagree with it. I stand firm on my faith, and on the scripture that holds it in place. You believe that once you have "saving faith" you can never choose to turn away from God. I agree, but the issue is when "salvation" happens. Justification is another issue. Can we lose it, yes, I believe we can. Is is a process, yes, we both agree it is. How the process plays out (imputed/infused) is the issue.
We can go around and around and around, but it doesn't change the fact that Protestants and Catholics don't agree. For 1500 years there was one faith and one church authority. Since the Reformation, there have been over 30,000 official Protestant denominations. We, as Catholics, yield to authority as given to the Church by Christ. Protestants don'e have to do that. They dispute--split, dispute--split until unity is gone and there is no "true" reformation church left.
My point, in saying all of that, is to say this. The Catholic teaching on faith and justification is unchanged. The doctrine stands as it has since the beginnings of the early church. I am not going to fight the Reformation wars with anyone.
There comes a point when we just have to know that we don't agree.
If you did agree with me, well, you would be Catholic!!! Or, you would be converting to Catholicism as soon as you realized the implications of your belief!
I appreciate your input. A lot of your arguments I have heard...often, but some of them were new and I appreciate them--I really do! Our faith is a journey, and a constant learning process, and I am happy to share it with anyone who wants to join the ride.
Hello, in a manner of peace and love I would like to merely digest with you one portion of your first discussion on Justified. Or as we both know Justification.
First your comment:
" Notice how, in Luther's 95 points, he doesn't declare the Church to be horrible or damned. What he does is uphold (the) church and its doctrines. He was actually fighting For not Against the church. He was supporting, not denying, the authority of the papacy. Luther did not set out to break away from the church, or to cause others to do so. What followed was, needless to say, a big debacle."
First in peace I would like to say I appreciate you assumption. In the case of reality and for the sake of history what you state is an assumption. Historically, Luther did separate from the church. It was to the point that the church issued a warrant for his excommunication.
This statement from wiki: His refusal (Luther's) to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the emperor.
You must understand history before making comments in this fashion. Martin Luther detested the Church and what it stood for. He did not like the fact that the only way for the lay people to hear God's word was in Latin. Not all the world read in Latin. Specifically for Luther the Germanic people needed a scripture in their tongue.
Ask yourself this question: If Luther did not make such statements as he did, then why would the Pope (Pope Leo X) want him excommunicated. Why would Luther then have to run from the church for fear of his life?
I will tell you. It is not just because he was willy nilly. No he (Luther) feared for his life because the Papacy really wanted him dead. It ill be important to read some history in this case. Please do it will benefit your research to understand the tru background on how the Church viewed Luther and his 95 thesis.
"What he does is uphold (the) Church and its doctrines."
You unjustly make this statement with out understanding the true meaning of the 95 thesis and the history behind it. Again in peace and love I beg you to research more in the life of Luther and the history of how the "church" viewed him.
What I mean to bring to light is what Luther as our good friend Torrie mentions "You have to remember that Luthers 95 thesis was only the beginning of what he would actually say about the Catholic Church, it’s doctrines and the Papacy." Luther detests the selling of indulgences.
Part 2:
For sake of research: Wiki says this:
In Catholic theology, an indulgence is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment[1] due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the Catholic Church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution.[2] The belief is that indulgences draw on the Treasury of Merit accumulated by Christ's superabundantly meritorious sacrifice on the cross and the virtues and penances of the saints.[3] They are granted for specific good works and prayers.
This was a doctrine held in high regard by the church on many reasons. One because the church had lost members and therefore had lost funding. Two, certain members who were never able to make it to mass could not see the priest to confess their sins. Pause " in itself another one of Luther's issues with the church," un-pause. Three they believed that they could save dead members of their family who were in "purgatory." These are doctrines that were held in high regard of the church. Thank the papacy for this.
See Thesis 5/6/8/10/11/13. I could go on. Again in peace and love, Please look at these, they are clear definitions against the church and against the doctrines of the church. Indulgences were set up as doctrine by the papacy for the forgiveness of sins as well as to fill the coffers of the church.
There is so much History behind you statement and you have clearly misinterpreted history. Please understand that this can be bad when trying to state you beliefs. If you back up your statements with ill informed information then you only will commit logical suicide.
I love to read your blog so look forward in the days ahead to discuss more of what you are bringing to the table.
In love and peace
Jym,
Sola Deo Gloria
Hi Jym. Welcome to the Bubble. In case you haven't read part 2 yet, i'll ask you to do that and also my comments there before you respond to me here.
First let me say this, I can't argue or cite scriptures or church doctrines like most. If you read pt. 2 you'll understand why. But from the history of Luther that I do know (from reading and research on my own) that he did want reformation in the church. He had a huge problem with selling indulgences. He found it immoral and against the will of God. I'm not disagreeing with that at all. And I am thankful he did speak out against it because due to that, we no longer have that problem. There were other issues that were also taken into consideration and thus changes were made.
With that said, the catholic church as a whole is now much different from when Martin Luther first wrote his 95 theses in 1517. I'm not saying that he was wrong for that nor am I saying that it should have ever happened. I'm glad it did.
Now, it's 2011. What do you know of the Catholic church? What do you know of us now? I appreciate everyone knowing so much about church HISTORY. History is what has brought us to this century and this year. And it has created the changes needed not only in our faith but it has also enriched the protestant faith.
I would like to see more embracing of all christians, catholic and protestant alike, than pointing fingers and saying how one church was wrong or right. As a catholic, new catholic, nay NEW CHRISTIAN, it is hard for me to seee such upheaval in all christians.
History is awesome. It is an account of what happened. We learn from our past in the hopes to not make the same mistakes.
Hopefully my post on pt.2 will fill in what I'm trying to say. The point of the justification was faith and works. This post was not to argue why Luther seperated from the church. That is for another day.
I have gone to great lenghts to read things written by catholics and non catholics on many topics. And the reformation is my current project. I am reading both sides to feel completly informed. I pray that everyone does that too. If you have a catholic question, its best to consult a catholic. Like when I have a protestant question, I ask a protestant.
The one main thing I have found is that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. I feel that from many protestants the feeling isn't mutual. And that makes me sad. One of the forefront speakers I'm reffering to is R.C Sproul. It maakes me sad.
Ok, off my soap box now. I love you all with Christ's love. I live my faith and I'm proud of that.
Blessings,
Stephanie
Hello Jym Wholeman and welcome to the discussion. I think it is amazing to watch how people interact here. I'm not saying just you but for everyone posting it is something to see the remarks after reading Aprils main blog posts. The back and forth that has been going on is truly something. Just as our friend Torrie has stated before you have disagreed with April about Luthers view of the Catholic Church. And I can see why you are doing so. I mean it is as though in that one paragraph April wrote in this first Justified...I think, maybe...ect post she stated that Luther loved the Catholic Church from begining to end, never had a bad thing to say about it, and walked around wishind to do the Popes biding and kissing his ring at every turn untill the day he died and is still doing so up untill this time. I have read that single paragraph over and over and thats not what I read. I see that April said in the beginning Luther may have felt such and such away about the Church. On the offset, at the start, at the gate, get what I'm saying here. Sure I can see how it can be offensive to peaple who follow all that Luther taught all through his life till the end that at one time in his life he may have felt differently and even wrote differently than he did later on in his life after things realy got heated between himself and the Church. But come on lets be realistic. To tell someone they don't know there history based off one paragraph that is being missread dosn't seem fair to me, even when it is done out of love and believe me I know it is or you or Torrie or anybody wouldn't take the time to post. I know you and Torrie mean well and April has stated that she intends on having a future post just on the reformers. I'm all excited about that. I think it will be great. But really she has not stated at all that Luther always uphelled the Churches teachings. See the language differance. And to others who are feeling that April made blasphamis statements about Luther do you see the language differance as well. I mean is there or is there not a difference dear readers of the english language in saying that something is one way at the begining and another way from that point forward? Your points on Luther are well noted and yes hear me everyone Luther grew to hate the Papacy, the Church and a whole lot of things I dare say my fellow readers of his life and of history may I dare to mention at times even himself. I do not, do not, hear me now, do not hate Martin Luther or any reformer. I will put it in the words of a Catholic pastor whom I love (yes a priest, oh the horror): Thank God for Martin Luther! Yes you heard right. Luther and many others where right, there where alot of things, horrible things going on in the Church at the time. But let us not tell April please that she is saying that Luther never hated the Church. Of course Luther seperated from the Church and was excommunicated, April never said he wasn't. cont...
cont. from previous... Jym your statement from wiki is great for a discussion on what happened at that time. As well as the other things you site. She never accuses Luther of being willi nilli. Of course the Thesis is only the beginning, here again that language, in the beginning. She dosn't say forever or always or anything but in the beginning. She uses language like "did not set out to" and the paragraph begins with "notice how in Luthers 95 points". At what point in these few sentences out of this whole post that she wrote to be about a Justification discussion does she say notice how in Luthers lifetime or anything like that. Don't go history bashing someone on six sentences. Please. Out of respect for what they are trully saying. She is talking about, just as is stated, what Luther says in the 95 points; period. Not the history of it, not the future of it, not what Luther was trully fealing but didn't say in the points; but what he said in the points that is what she is saying. Heck those are her words. I just looked back again and reread them to make sure. Look I love you Jym. I don't know you but I love you with the love of a fellow brother in Christ our risin Lord and Saviour. And you know I love you Torrie, or you should anyway. Look I can't spell so forgive the misstakes but really Jym it took you two comment posts to talk about six sentences that in all honesty you must have missread.
“This is what I was responding too, Torrie. You based statement and catechism argument on the above statement. My statement was the merits and works alone are not sufficient.”
That’s not what I was actually arguing! I know that Catholic doctrine does not teach that merits and works alone save. What I was arguing is that Catholic doctrine teaches that merits and works justify in the end. This is why I pointed out that the doctrine teaches that Justification is in stages. Faith being the first stage and merits and works being the second that justify a person unto salvation. Again that’s why I pointed out that “I find nothing in Paul’s writings(or anywhere else in the New Testament, for that matter) which teaches that faith is merely the “first stage” leading to Justification. When the church calls faith the “first stage” of salvation, and good works follow in the second stage, it ignores the fact that the scriptures emphatically state that good works have no part in justification.” It contradicts Paul’s teaching on Justification. Also there isn’t any evidence in the gospels of men being justified in stages here’s what we do see. We do see Christ saving people by faith alone. I know I know the word alone
Luke 7:48-50: Jesus tells the dishonorable woman that He forgave her sins because “your faith has saved you.
John 11:25-26: Jesus tells a grieving Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.
-Notice he doesn’t say, “and after you’ve proved to me thru good works then you’ll be saved.”
Matthew 9:2, 9:20, 9:29: Jesus heals the paralytic, the woman with the internal bleeding, and the two blind men because of their “faith.”
Matthew 25:21-23: Jesus says that the servants’ good stewardship and subsequent reward are due to the fact that they are “faithful.”
1. The words for “faith/faithfulness/trust/believe” are prevalent in the life, teaching, and ministry of Jesus.
2. In nearly every account of healing, casting out demons, or life-anxiety, Jesus commands, responds to, and commends faith.
3. Jesus further links faith to such important themes as good works, prayer, miracles, perseverance, His own cross and resurrection, and our eternal life in Him.
4. Jesus often links faith to life in the Holy Spirit.
5. Several times, Jesus flips the Jewish emphasis on personal works to one of faith in Him.
6. Most clearly, faith is the only means Christ names for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 7:48-50, Luke 9:20, etc).
So what about works! Jesus’ didn’t deny works but he def put them in their right place. He never, ever taught that works justify, only that they prove true faith. He did clearly teach that faith justifies. Faith in Him is what makes a sinner right before God. Works have their place, but they don’t belong in the place of faith. What we do never makes us right before God; that’s Jesus’ job, and He finished it well. If we try to make works a way that Justifies us in the end, remember this: an inordinate focus on what we do always overshadows what He has already done it. The point of the Gospels, and the whole Bible (according to Jesus in Luke 24, among other texts), is Christ crucified and risen.
It is His sacrificial redemption that makes us “zealous for good works,” in Paul’s language (Titus 2:14), or “the light of the world” in Christ’s (Matthew 5:14). The way we read the connections may be different from Gospel to epistle, but the connection itself is the same.....cont
“You believe that once you have "saving faith" you can never choose to turn away from God. I agree, but the issue is when "salvation" happens. Justification is another issue. Can we lose it, yes, I believe we can. Is is a process, yes, we both agree it is. How the process plays out (imputed/infused) is the issue.”
Well the problem April is that I don’t believe that it’s a “process” in the way you might interpreted. it! Now the reason I don’t believe it is because scripture makes it clear that it’s a one time deal. I’ll address this and some more of (Imputed/Infused) in my response to part2 of your post. Also you say , “Can we lose it, yes, I believe we can.” Well that begs the question, why do you believe that? What evidence can you show that makes that statement true? Your statements need to be able to stand on evidence!
“For 1500 years there was one faith and one church authority. Since the Reformation, there have been over 30,000 official Protestant denominations.”
Two things. 1st again this is another statement that begs the question, also it’s close to committing the logical fallacy Argumentum ad Numerum(Appealing to numbers) how does that make something true esp in light of the fact that history and scripture don’t fully agree with that statement(but that’s another argument?) How do you know that statement is true? 2nd The statement about protestant denom. commits the Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad Populum. April I could use the same type of argument. Example: The Roman Catholic Church has persecuted and martyred almost 5million people thru history which makes it a false Church. These type of statements don’t really have much validity. Also the whole 30,000 denom. Is very misleading. Here’s the real facts. World Christian Encyclopedia: http://mp3.aomin.org/images/jpeg/WCEP16.jpg Remember this is statistical data not actual data and the actual statistical data reads 8,973 protestant denominations when in reality there are only 27. Even this same data says that there are 242 Roman Catholic Denominations when in actuality there are only 22. Hmmm only 5 less than Protestantism. So by using your same argument. If there are 242 RC denominations, does it mean that the system for the rule of faith and morals that the RCC follows also brings disunity like the one accused against the Protestant's sola scriptura? Seriously in all love and gentleness April you have to be real careful about making blanket statements like these without having the proper facts to back it up.....cont
“We, as Catholics, yield to authority as given to the Church by Christ. Protestants don'e have to do that. They dispute--split, dispute--split until unity is gone and there is no "true" reformation church left.”
Ok let’s start being honest here April and again not make blanket statements. First of all protestant Churches put their Authority in Scripture Alone. You put your authority in Scripture and Tradition. I’ll just comment using the words of one of the Catholic Church Doctors!
"What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil, Letter 189, 3)
April this is exactly what the reformers have been saying all along! Basil says that when unity cannot be attained by first appealing to "church tradition", which I agree and so did the reformers that church tradition is good as long as it follows scripture ,if not Basil continues with “then the highest court of appeal is to debate the matter directly from scripture!” But that’s not the case. I’ll even quote from the Orthodox side which I’m always told is part of the Catholic Church.
"In defending sola Scriptura, Protestant apologists invariably use Roman Catholic theology as a foil. It is asserted that Roman Catholics accept two sources of authority-Scripture and tradition-and that tradition is given equal weight with Scripture. Second, it is asserted that Roman Catholic reliance on tradition has resulted in the modern doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility. From these premises, Protestants conclude that sola Scriptura is the only safeguard against aberrant doctrinal developments. First of all, the doctrinal aberrations of the Roman Catholic Church are manifestly not part of the universal tradition of the Church. The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional. Furthermore, the Orthodox Church has never accepted the Roman Catholic assertion that there are two sources of authority. The Church recognizes one and only one source of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition. The Divine Scriptures are part-albeit the most important part-of that tradition. To set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog. (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 135)
“The Catholic teaching on faith and justification is unchanged. The doctrine stands as it has since the beginnings of the early church. I am not going to fight the Reformation wars with anyone.
There comes a point when we just have to know that we don't agree. If you did agree with me, well, you would be Catholic!!! Or, you would be converting to Catholicism as soon as you realized the implications of your belief!”
I think the qoutes above challenge and question your last statement....cont
I do appreciate this dialogue, it’s definitely challenging me to know what I believe, what others believe and to know whether what I believe is actually true or false. We must constantly ask questions search for truth and search the scriptures like the Bereans!
In Love
Torrie
Now Jym, as for indulgences. That was the purpose of the thesis right. The selling of indulgences are wrong. Oh, he didn't. Did you just hear that? Someone said that the sellind of insulgences is wrong, they just said that to sell indulgences is wrong. This is a scandal, an outrage, a...! Of course to sell indulgences is wrong oh my! Can we say it again! I mean is there someone, can we find the person who really feals that we should reinstate that horrid practice that was so corrupt at the time. Now wait a minute. Corrupt, now why do you figure is that language used. What is corruption to something anyhow. Is it not taking something that is healthy and perverting it, missusing it, making it sick in some way, making part of it a lie? Does it destroy the entire thing? Not on the onset, no. There are corrupt police yet you call 911 and you will recieve help. But if you let corruption stick around and it can so disfigure what was there that it will decay from the inside out. Look at our government and many other governments. There is corruption in politics we all know this yet here we sit discussing faith on the internet in America as free people still. For now, the corruption gets bad enough and the system will decay from the inside out. Its not the spirituallity of indulgences that is bad my friend, and yes oh I know you disagree and that is ok and please notice I have not mentioned Luthers name so far, he is for another discussion. Now I am talking of indulgences as you have so spoken of them in your post. Yes there is so much History behind them and indulgences are part of Church belief and practice but NOT hear me now NOT the SELLING of indulgences do not dare to say in the tone of one who is blasting historical accuracy that it was Church doctrice come from the papacy to Sell indulgences. Don't you see that is what made the act corrupt! Not the indulgences themselves, no, but the selling of them. That takes and distorts there intention. It makes it sick, and was practiced by sick Bishops. Come on now lets not only look at a narrow History. Lets look at a true large picture history that includes the spiritual story behind the headlines so to speek. That is the discussion we should have. Lets speek of Church doctrine becouse it has never changed. The Doctrine of the faith is steadfast. There have been corrupt priests, bishops, popes, lay persons by the score; but the doctrine remains, the deposit of faith is steadfast. Corruption oh yes my fellow sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, its all around us. Wolves breaking in to the sheepfold to reek havack and destroy, you bet. Satan is on the prowl and he never sleeps, let us be vigilant then. He was tempting peaple to sin that where Popes as well as pagans in Luthers time and dare I say, hold on to your hat, he is doing it still to this day. Corruption is the key word on what you have said on indulgences.
Torrie, oh my I cant wait to jump in there with you guys on your theological discussion. You and April are covering some ground and I have the deepest respect for it. For now I can only say I've stayed up to late.
Love you all!
I would like to clarify, for those of you who, like Torrie, don't understand the structure of the Catholic Church, that there is ONE Roman Catholic denomination. The list Torrie made reference to in his post was not a list of denominations, it was a list of cultural rites within the ONE denomination of the Roman Catholic Church. Being that the Church is worldwide, there are not divisions, but districts so to speak. They all have ONE doctrine that is shared and all acknowledge Rome as the center of the Church.
Like you said, Torrie, in all gentleness, please know your facts before you state them.
Also, according the World Christian Encyclopedia, there are 33,000 Christian denominations worldwide. They divide Protestants from Independents and Anglicans which, usually Catholics refer to Protestants as any non-Catholic denomination. Even if you take the Protestants alone, the number is 9,000 which is also supported by what is on the Gordon Conwell's Theological Seminary website.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify that information.
Bryan,
Now as for your statement on corruption, Of course there is corruption everywhere. Man is totally sinful and cannot in this manner choose God. There is forgiveness in one manner from God. This we must realize. It was not my point to prove or show corruption of the church. No. I think you may have and forgive me if you feel you did not misunderstood my whole statement. It was a historical rebuttal to statements that were made. Please feel free to research more. As I am doing daily, I will even provide links and book recommendations in my writing.
Jym,
In Love and Peace
Sola Deo Gloria
Bryan, My last may be a little awkward to read. For this I must ask for forgiveness. I find myself reading this first portion that April posted. It is a clear and concise statement. It was answered in the same manner.
It is important as you know for clarification. But the only clarification needed is what April meant by the statement. I appreciate your defense of her comments and praise God for the opportunity to answer yours. You make valid points that I must ponder and get back with you. Please allow me the opportunity to think upon our posts.
Jym,
Sola Deo Gloria
Jym,
I apologize to you and to Torrie for not speaking specifically enough for you to understand my statements about Luther. I did try to clarify them to Torrie, but I guess it still didn't get through. I really don't want to discuss or debate Luther in this post. That is not what the post topic was meant to be. I was only meaning to say that, at the time of Luther's 95 Theses, his intention was not to split from the church, but to spark reform, and that he, at the time was ONLY speaking against the SELLING of indulgences, which is and was not doctrine. The proclamation of indulgences and the selling of indulgences are two seperate issues.
As I said, I am only speaking because you stated you would like clarification of what I was trying to say. As I've said. I am not going to argue, debate, or further discuss Luther in this particular post.
BTW--Welcome to the Bubble!!!
Peace and Love in Jesus Christ,
april
Post a Comment