Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 4)
May 17th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
Long Before Luther: Jesus and the Doctrine of Justification
No doctrine is more important to evangelical theology than the doctrine of justification by faith alone—the Reformation principle of sola fide. Martin Luther called it the article that determines whether the church is standing or falling.
History provides plenty of objective evidence to affirm Luther’s assessment. Churches and denominations that hold firmly to sola fide remain evangelical. Those willing to yield at this point inevitably capitulate to liberalism, revert to sacerdotalism, or embrace even worse forms of apostasy. Historic evangelicalism has therefore always treated justification by faith as a central biblical distinctive—if not the single most important doctrine to get right. It would not be far from the truth to define evangelicals as those who believe in justification by faith alone.
Scripture itself makes sola fide the only alternative to a damning system of works-righteousness: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:4-5, emphasis added). Israel’s apostasy was rooted in their abandonment of justification by faith alone: “For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3).
In other words, those who trust Jesus Christ for justification by faith alone receive a perfect righteousness that is reckoned to them. Those who attempt to establish their own righteousness or mix faith with works only receive the terrible wage that is due all who fall short of perfection. So the individual as well as the church stands or falls with the principle of sola fide.
Biblical justification must be earnestly defended on two fronts. Many today misuse the doctrine to support the view that obedience to God’s moral law is optional. This teaching attempts to reduce the whole of God’s saving work to the declarative act of justification. It downplays the spiritual rebirth of regeneration (2 Cor. 5:17); it discounts the moral effects of the believer’s new heart (Ezek. 36:26-27); and it makes sanctification hinge on the believer’s own efforts. It tends to treat the forensic element of justification—God’s act of declaring the believing sinner righteous—as if this were the only essential aspect of salvation. The inevitable effect of this approach is to turn the grace of God into licentiousness (Jude 4). Such a view is called antinomianism.
On the other hand, there are many who make justification dependent on a mixture of faith and works. Whereas antinomianism radically isolates justification from sanctification, this error blends the two aspects of God’s saving work. The effect is to make justification a process grounded in the believer’s own flawed righteousness—rather than a declarative act of God grounded in Christ’s perfect righteousness. As soon as justification is fused with sanctification, works of righteousness become an essential part of the process. Faith is thus diluted with works. Sola fide is abandoned. This was the error of the Galatian legalists (cf. Gal. 2:16). Paul called it “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6, 9). The same error is found in virtually every false cult. It is also the whole basis of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification.
Evangelicalism is currently being assaulted with both errors. The “lordship salvation” controversy reveals the potency of modern antinomianism. Meanwhile on the other front, a push is underway for ecumenical union with Roman Catholicism. This would require evangelicals to soften their stance on sola fide and grant the stamp of legitimacy to a Galatian-style doctrine of justification that mingles faith and works. These trends are especially alarming because they emanate from within the evangelical movement itself.
And outside evangelicalism, justification by faith alone is being vigorously attacked. A new generation of Roman Catholic apologists have taken up arms against sola fide. According to them, Scripture does not teach the doctrine—it is an invention of Luther and the Reformers.
I recently listened to a taped presentation by a Catholic priest who was making these claims. He suggested that Jesus virtually ignored the doctrine of justification in His own teaching and evangelism. This man, who frequently debates Protestant theologians, said he has challenged them all to demonstrate where Jesus taught that anyone could be justified by faith alone. So far, he said, he has not found anyone willing to take him up on his dare.
Unfortunately, today’s evangelicals are poorly equipped to meet such a challenge. Many see theology as less important than the great moral issues of our day, such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and similar concerns. Thrown together with Roman Catholics in the political arena, many moral activists view it as counterproductive to debate theology. They prefer to let the doctrinal differences between Rome and the Reformers fade into obscurity. At the very least they are willing to treat all doctrinal differences as secondary matters. This mindset is behind the document titled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” which calls evangelicals to embrace all Catholics as true brothers and sisters in Christ.
Meanwhile, ignorance and theological naivete have left many evangelicals unable to defend what Scripture teaches. Ours is an age of pragmatism, obsessed with what works and less concerned with what is true. Too few are able or willing to defend evangelical truths against contradictory views. It is easier—and it seems so much more polite—simply not to argue. Therefore attacks on crucial evangelical doctrines often go unanswered. The next generation will reap the poisonous fruit of this trend.
If doctrine as a whole has been ignored in our day, the doctrine of justification has suffered a particular neglect. Written works on justification are noticeably missing from the corpus of recent evangelical literature. In his introduction to the 1961 reprint of James Buchanan’s landmark work on justification, J. I. Packer made note of this:
It is a fact of ominous significance that Buchanan’s classic volume, now a century old, is the most recent full-scale study of justification by faith that English-speaking Protestantism (to look no further) has produced. If we may judge by the size of its literary output, there has never been an age of such feverish theological activity as the past hundred years; yet amid all its multifarious theological concerns it did not produce a single book of any size on the doctrine of justification. If all we knew of the church during the past century was that it had neglected the subject of justification in this way, we should already be in a position to conclude that this has been a century of religious apostasy and decline.
No doctrine is more important to defend than the biblical teaching that believers are justified by faith alone. Sola fide is one truth that we must keep clearly in sight if we are to steer a safe course between the twin evils of antinomianism on one side and works-righteousness on the other. The apostle Paul counted it so important that he issued a solemn curse of eternal damnation against anyone who would corrupt the gospel at this point (Gal. 1:9). No wonder so many in the Reformation gave their lives in defense of this doctrine.
In fact, justification was the doctrine that sparked the Reformation. Catholic theology had neglected the subject for centuries. Rome was unprepared to answer the early Reformers’ doctrinal challenge. So the Church’s initial response was to deflect the debate to the issue of moral and ecclesiastical reforms. Martin Luther was frustrated by Rome’s unwillingness to address doctrine—especially justification by faith. He even stated that he would gladly yield to the pope on ecclesiastical matters if the pope would embrace the true gospel. Luther understood that all the moral and ecclesiastical offenses tolerated by the Church were ultimately a result of the eclipse of justification. The doctrine of justification by faith alone would have automatically ended the sale of indulgences and other abuses of ecclesiastical power.
So when the Reformers’ preaching about justification by faith began to awaken the masses to the truth of Scripture, it was inevitable that the Roman Catholic Church would respond.
(To be continued tomorrow)
Warning: long comment ahead.
Well, today I thought I’d preempt the discussion with a few quotes from church history (thanks in large part to the work done by Matthew McMahon).
*****
Clement of Rome (d. c. 100): [See the discussion on Wednesday] “We also, being called through God’s will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith.”
Polycarp: “I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ.” (The Epistle of Philippians)
Justin Martyr (d. 165) in his Dialogue with Trypho: “No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.”
Mathetes to Diognetus (late 2nd century): “He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange (substitution)! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food.” (Mathetes to Diognetus, Chapter 9.)
Ignatius of Antioch: “His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified” (Epistle to Philadelphians).
Irenaeus of Lyons (d. c. 200): “Through the obedience of one man [Jesus] who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation.” (Adversus Haereses)
Marius Victorinus (born c. 280, converted around 356): Every mystery which is enacted by our Lord Jesus Christ asks only for faith. The mystery was enacted at that time for our sake and aimed at our resurrection and liberation, should we have faith in the mystery of Christ and in Christ. For the patriarchs prefigured and foretold that man would be justified from faith. Therefore, just as it was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham that he had faith, so we too, if we have faith in Christ and every mystery of his, will be sons of Abraham. Our whole life will be accounted as righteous. (Epistle to the Galatians, 1.3.7.)
Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398): “But how can some say that because the spirit which gives life to the body is more honorable than the body, therefore works are more honorable than faith? I have looked into this matter in some detail and shall try to explain my position on this. It is undoubtedly true that the spirit is nobler than the body, but this does not mean that works can be put before faith, because a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.” (From his Commentary on James, 2:26b.)
Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 20:7: “Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.” (Cited in George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, 230).
Athanasius: “It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word [Genesis 2:17] and that humanity, having transgressed, should not die. It was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back on His word regarding death [Genesis 2:17] in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not make Himself a liar. What, then, was God to do?. The Logos perceived that our perishing condition could not be abolished except through death. Yet He Himself, as the Logos, being immortal and the Father’s Son, could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that this body, through belonging to the Logos Who is above all, might become a sufficient exchange in dying for all. His body, remaining imperishable through His indwelling, would thereafter put an end to perishing for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. By surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, He immediately abolished death for His human brothers by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Logos of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled by death all that was required.” (On the Incarnation of the Logos, 6-7, 9.)
Athanasius: “To provide against this also, He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son of Man, by taking created flesh; that, since all were under sentence of death, He, being other than them all, might Himself for all offer to death His own body; and that henceforth, as if all had died through Him, the word of that sentence might be accomplished (for all died in Christ), and all through Him might thereupon become free from sin and from the curse which came upon it, and might truly abide forever, risen from the dead and clothed in immortality and incorruption.” (Orations Against The Arians 2:69.)
Basil of Caesarea (329-379): “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ. (Cited in Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, 1:505)
Ambrose (c. 339-97): “Thus I do not have the wherewithal to enable me to glory in my own works, I do not have the wherewithal to boast of myself, and so I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I have been redeemed. I will not glory because I am free of sins, but because sins have been forgiven me. I will not glory because I am profitable or because anyone is profitable to me, but because Christ is an advocate in my behalf with the Father, because the blood of Christ has been poured out in my behalf.” (FC, Vol. 65, Seven Exegetical Works, Jacob and the Happy Life, 1.6.21)
Ambrose (again): “I have nothing, therefore, whereby I may glory in my works; I have nothing to boast of, and, therefore, I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I am righteous, but because I am redeemed. I will not glory because I am free from sin, but because my sins are pardoned. I will not glory because I have done good to any one, or any one has done good to me, but because Christ is my advocate with the Father, and because Christ’s blood was shed for me.” (Cited in George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, 220).
Ambrose (again): “Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.” (Cited in Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, 220).
Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat). (In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D.)
Jerome (again): “He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever.” (Cited in Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, 61).
Chrysostom (349-407): “For he makes a wide distinction between commandments and ordinances. He either then means faith, calling that an ordinance, (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means precept, such as Christ gave, when He said, “But I say unto you, that ye are not to be angry at all.” (Matthew 5:22.) That is to say, If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’ (Romans 10:6-9.) And again, The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall descend into the abyss?’ or, who hath brought. Him again from the dead?’ Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself underwent the penalty, and also required of men the faith that is by doctrines” (Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5, Ephesians 2:11,12.)
Chrysostom (again): The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, “Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.” (Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7)
Chrysostom (again): For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. (Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27).
Chrysostom (again): “For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.” (Homilies on Romans, Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2.)
Chrysostom (again): “And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows.” (Commentary on Galatians, 3:8ff.)
Chrysostom (again): God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent. (Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9.)
Augustine (354-430): If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.
. . . . You see that Abraham was justified not by what he did, but by his faith. . . . The two apostles [Paul and James] are not contradicting each other. James dwells on an action performed by Abraham that we all know about: he offered his son to God as a sacrifice. That is a great work, but it proceeded from faith. I have nothing but praise for the superstructure of action, but I see the foundation of faith; I admire the good work as a fruit, but I recognize that it springs from the root of faith. If Abraham had done it without right faith it would have profited him nothing, however noble the work was. On the other hand, if Abraham had been so complacent in his faith that, on hearing God’s command to offer his son as a sacrificial victim, he had said to himself, “No, I won’t. But I believe that God will set me free, even if I ignore his orders,” his faith would have been a dead faith because it did not issue in right action, and it would have remained a barren, dried-up root that never produced fruit.” (Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4).
Augustine (again): “When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.” (Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31).
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384) commenting upon 1 Cor. 1:4b: “God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.”
Ambrosiaster (again), on Rom. 1:11: “For the mercy of God had been given for this reason, that they should cease from the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weaknesses, decreed that the human race would be saved by faith alone, along with the natural law.”
Ambrosiaster (again), on Rom. 2:12: “For if the law is given not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect. For others mere avoidance of evil will not gain them any advantage with God unless they also believe in God, so that they may be righteous on both counts. For the one righteousness is temporal; the other is eternal.”
Ambrosiaster (again), on Rom. 3:24: “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.”
Ambrosiaster (again), on Rom. 3:27: “Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith.”
Ambrosiaster (again), on Rom. 4:5: “How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone.”
Ambrosiaster (again), on Rom. 4:6, “‘righteousness apart from works’: Paul backs this up by the example of the prophet David, who says that those are blessed of whom God has decreed that, without work or any keeping of the law, they are justified before God by faith alone.”
Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): “Seeing then that the law condemned sinners and sometimes imposed the supreme penalty on those who disregarded it and was in no way merciful, how was the appointment of a truly compassionate and merciful high priest not necessary for those on earth; one who would abrogate the curse, check the legal process, and free the sinners with forgiving grace and commands based on gentleness? ‘I,’ says the text, ‘I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins’ (Is. 43:25). For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says (Gal. 2:16). By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ? (Against Nestorius in Norman Russell, 165).
Cyril of Alexandria (again): “For truly the compassion from beside the Father is Christ, as he takes away the sins, dismisses the charges and justifies by faith, and recovers the lost and makes [them] stronger than death. For what is good and he does not give? Therefore the knowledge of God is better than sacrifice and holocausts, as it is brought to perfection in Christ. For by him and in him we have known the Father, and we have become rich in the justification by faith.” (Commentary on Hosea. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, p. 29).
Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532) commenting on Eph. 2:8: “The blessed Paul argues that we are saved by faith, which he declares to be not from us but a gift from God. Thus there cannot possibly be true salvation where there is no true faith, and, since this faith is divinely enabled, it is without doubt bestowed by his free generosity. Where there is true belief through true faith, true salvation certainly accompanies it. Anyone who departs from true faith will not possess the grace of true salvation.” (On the Incarnation, 1.)
John,
I obviuosly disagree with most of what you said, but I can plainly see that you are a very intelligent,learned and charitable man as are the others who post here.
With that said,
Nate,
So I see the early bird get the worm…well done!
Again, all those that you quote from were Catholics with a capital C and the Church agrees with all that was quoted above. I would ask that you read all of their writings and see what else they believed in (what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches, i.e The Sacrifice of The Mass, the Seven Sacraments, Regeneration of Trinitarian baptism, The Papacy and Primacy of Rome, Purgatory, Communion of the Saints, etc..).
The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach salvation is earned by works. It is as Galations 5:6 says: “Faith working through love”
6 For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
and in James 2:19-26:
19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
We say Faith and works go hand in hand..
John, Nate…
The constant teaching of the Catholic Church on the relationship of faith and works was clearly restated on January 13, 1547.
Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. VIII
When the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, “without which it is impossible to please God” and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, “if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise,” as the Apostle says, “grace is no more grace.”
The Council also reiterated the relationship of good works to man justified by faith.
Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. XVI
Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: “Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name”; and “Do not lose confidence, which hath a great reward.” Hence, to those who work well “unto the end” and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.
We may be closer than you think…
God bless..
Nate,
I did notice you left out a quote from your source. Could it be because it mentioned a Pope, a council, a decision by bishops and the word Catholic?
Pope Boniface to Caesarius: “[Phil. 1:29]–it appears obvious that our faith in Christ, like all good things, comes to individuals from the gift of divine grace and not from the power of human nature. We rejoice that your brotherhood perceived this truth in accordance with catholic faith, when a council of some bishops of Gaul was held. As you have indicated, they decided unanimously that our faith in Christ is conferred on men by the intervention of divine grace. They added that there is absolutely nothing good in God’s eyes that anyone can wish, begin, do, or complete without the grace of God, for as our Savior said, “Without me you can do nothing” [John 15:5]. For it is both a certainty and an article of catholic faith that in all good things, the greatest of which is faith, divine mercy intervenes for us when we are not yet willing [to believe], so that we might become willing; it remains in us when we are willing [to believe]; and it follows us so that we remain in faith.” William E. Klingshirn, trans., Caesarius of Arles: Life, Testament, Letters, Letter 20 - Pope Boniface to Caesarius; 2 (Liverpool: University Press, 1994), p. 125.
Excellent article Dr. MacArthur and I hope that you will continue to take a bold stand against compromise with Rome. I know that you, Sproul, James Kennedy and Ankerburg sat down to refute this compromise we see in ECT. I just recently heard that James Kennedy have a catholic priest speak at his conference, to me that just negates everything. There is no doubt that the future generation will reap the poison fruit because of the compromise we see today. God will judge this nation.
It’s too bad that J.I. Packer would endorse and sign the ECT. You can not justify disobedience…..even though you are have a pretigious position…..in fact you are held to a greater standard because of your high position. Apparently most of our influencial Evangelical leaders have no problem merging with Rome for a “social gospel”………and they simply do not realize the consequences that have come (i.e. confusion and division) as a result of that one historical decision. What may appear as an attempt to unify a people, has actually caused more division than they realize. There are many Born-Again Christians across the landscape that are not prominent or well-known that will have absolutely nothing to do with this compromise. The problem is, we usually only see what’s in the limelight
To love the Lord Jesus is to hate evil false way, namely false doctrine and a false gospel. To be comitted to the Gospel means to stand up boldly and proclaim Truth in the midst of compromise and evil!
This series brings to mind the following quote:
“The need for paying close attention to the context is a matter of first importance. Not only must each statement of Scripture be explained in full harmony with the rest of Scripture…but more specifically, must be explained in full agreement with the plain sense and tenor of the passage which it forms a part. That “plain sense” must be diligently searched for. Few things have contributed more to erroneous interpretation than the ignoring of this obvious principle. By divorcing a verse from it’s setting…or by singling out a particular phrase…one may “prove” not only absurdities…but real falsities…using the very words of Scripture.” A. W. Pink
Sola gratia, Sola fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria: salvation IS by grace alone, through faith alone, in the Person and work of Christ alone as revealed in the Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone.
Twisting select words of Scripture and quoting from a lengthy encyclopedia not inspired, not the Word of God, and not in agreement with what God says and means saints chosen and enabled in Christ are to meditate upon and have hidden in their hearts so they won’t sin against the Lord ~ cannot change God’s truth.
Greetings.
Thank you John once again for standing in the gap as we face herecy and moral equivilence…
There seem to be two points about the CCC that have not been touched on in this series- one is from the Catholic Creed that states on p. 6-
“That the Bible alone without the interpretation of the Catholic Church is not a safe rule of faith, nor an adequate guide to lead me to heaven….that as a matter of fact, the Catholic Church had existed about sixty years when the last books of the New Testament were written.”
The second concerns Communion and the Catholic notion that men become gods…
From CCC 460
“so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus recieving divine sonship, might become a son of God…the only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
I would encourage all Roman Catholics to acquire a copy of their catachism and review just exactly what their religion teaches.
Blessings on you,
Bob
“[O]ver and above faith other acts are necessary for justification, such as fear (Ecclus., i, 28), and hope (Romans 8:24), charity (Luke 7:47), penance with contrition (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19), almsgiving (Dan., iv, 24; Tob., xii, 9).” - New Advent online, “Grace”
My question for the Catholic posters here, in all sincerity, as I am not learned in Catholic doctrine:
–How are “fear” and “hope” acts? How do we do them? Can one be deficient in either of these and still be justified?
–How much “contrition” is required? Who decides this?
–How much “almsgiving” is required?
–Are these the only other acts necessary for justification? Are there more?
Fr John Waiss is on record as saying that trying to live a faithful Christian life, partaking of the sacraments, contrition, penance, etc are necessary for salvation. Do the Roman Catholics commenting here agree w/ him? If not, why not and how can you justify such a display of disunity?
Thanks!
How does the RCC justify the “Eucharist”? Because the second commandment doesn’t mention BAKED GOODS?
It is IDOLATRY!
What a tangled web this is…seems like the RCC will always quote mere men because that’s what they trust in and we will always quote scripture because that’s what the bible says is able to lead to salvation. Scripture will continue to be misused (out of context) to support doctrines of men. (i.e. the James passage quoted above is used to support faith + works = salvation, instead of realizing that faith = salvation + works in light of the rest of scripture)
Thank God that He is in control…we obviously have not the ability to “convince” anyone who is stuck in such a system. I was in it for almost 25 years and by God’s eye-opening grace, He brought me out. What a sense of relief that was! I am grateful for the many whom are working for Him to fight for the Truth. (i.e. Mike Gendron at www.pro-gospel.org, Johnny Mac, and many others) I see my family, whom are still stuck in the RCC, rely upon their works to tip the proverbial scale towards the “good works” side so they can make it into Heaven. Sad. You say that the RCC doesn’t trust in works? That’s unconvincing given the many places in the CCC that tend to say so, pretty clearly. If Christ’s work on the cross was perfect in it’s effect, nothing you can do will add to that. His blood sacrifice, once and for all time, justified true believers in God’s sight…period.
Does the church play a role in dispensing the Truth of scripture? Sure. That’s never been a question. The trick is not to let your own interpretation contradict scripture in so many places. Unfortunately, the RCC’s system of dogma shoots itself in the foot because when something that has been pronounced contradicts scripture, there’s nothing they can do about it because those things were spoken ex cathedra. Makes for a nasty problem over time given the fact that popes are fallible men.
…
Mr. Moore,
We worship the Bread of Life. Have you ever given thought to the possibility that the Bread of Presence, just may be related to the the Eucharist that Catholics eat? and the Manna (which means “what is it?”)…have you ever given thought to why it rotted like flesh? Bread molds, meat gets maggots like the Manna did. and then there is the prophecy in Malachi 1:11…does your church fulfill this prophecy by having a continual pure grain offering before the Lord?
Maybe you are right and I am wrong. If I am wrong, hopefully God will know my heart and know that I truly believed that the Bread and Wine on that altar was actually His body and blood. If it IS His body and blood then it IS Jesus and I must worship Jesus. If I thought it was a mere cracker, I wouldn’t worship it.
I would be careful of passing judgment on others. I’ll assume that you know what Scripture has to say about judging others.
If you are wrong, then hopefully God knows your heart and will not count it against you. But remember that the Pharisees just couldn’t comprehend that Jesus was God because they couldn’t believe that God would lower Himself to take on human flesh. They refused to worship Him because they saw it as blasphemy to worship a man. If God took the form of human flesh, do you think it possible that he could take the form of bread and wine to feed us?
Gerry,
Thanks for your comments. You have clearly given much thought to these matters, and it is a pleasure to interact with you.
You wrote: The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach salvation is earned by works.
My question: How is this statement compatible with the Catholic Church’s teaching on baptism, penance, keeping the commandments, and church membership?
Allow me to cite several portions from the Catholic Catechism:
Baptism:
“Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament” (P 1270).
“By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as punishment for sin [fn, Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1316]” P 1263].
Penance:
“Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded the ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification” (P 1446).
“Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance” (P 1456).
“Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g. return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationship with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused [fn, Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712]. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must ‘make satisfaction for’ or ‘expiate’ his sins. This satisfaction is also called ‘penance’” (P 1459).
Keeping the Ten Commandments:
“The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them [fn, Cf. DS 1569-1570]; the Second Vatican Council confirms: ‘The bishops, succors of the apostles, receive from the Lord … the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments’” (P 2068; ellipse in original).
Membership in the Roman Catholic Church:
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church through which men enter through Baptism as through the door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to enter it or to remain in it” (P 846).
****
Do you see how, from a Protestant perspective, this is difficult to reconcile with the claim that “The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach salvation is earned by works”?
If water baptism, penance before a priest, keeping the commandments, and joining the RCC are all necessary for salvation, then how can salvation not be based, at least in part, on human works?
- NB
Kit wrote: What a tangled web this is…seems like the RCC will always quote mere men because that’s what they trust in and we will always quote scripture because that’s what the bible says is able to lead to salvation. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kit, the only men that I ahve quoted are those who were inspired by God and their writings are recorded in scripture. Is it really fair to say that catholics “always quote mere men because that’s what they trust in?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kit wrote: Scripture will continue to be misused (out of context) to support doctrines of men. (i.e. the James passage quoted above is used to support faith + works = salvation, instead of realizing that faith = salvation + works in light of the rest of scripture)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ll never understand how you can be so certain that the Protestant interpretations (
as a person seeing this fierce debate, i see there are two parties existing: one consistent with the scriptures, and the other none. Futhermore, what I see is that although they are not scriptural, they could be so impressive and passionate like the Pharisees and sadducees. The consewuence is very clear. The Rcc isn’t a partner to work together for Jesus’ sake. they must be a mission field to be converted by the Gospel alone. Faith always is to proved by work. I’ve never seen any doctor without any diagnosis prescribing a patient.In other words, when a doctor is convinced with the patient’s diseas, the doctors’action will follow.
The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach salvation is earned by works.
My question: How is this statement compatible with the Catholic Church’s teaching on baptism, penance, keeping the commandments, and church membership?
The RCC teaches OBEDIENCE to God’s commandments. and when we sin, we have an advocate in Christ. But, forgiveness comes with repentance. You have to REPENT to be forgiven. This does require action or at least menatl ascent on the part of the individual. AFter initial repentance and acceptance of Christ, Baptism is COMMANDED.
In Acts, people were always immediately baptized.
‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’ Acts 22:16
Does this not say that baptism washes away sin?
The RCC teaches baptism is necessary b/c Scripture indicates that it is necessary. wouldn’t teaching otherwise be unbiblical?
ugh! my post got cut off again. of course after I quoted about 50 scripture verses…
I’ll never understand how you can be so certain that the Protestant interpretations (
But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
I don’t think Paul agrees with sola fide.
Tammy wrote: Kit, the only men that I ahve quoted are those who were inspired by God and their writings are recorded in scripture. Is it really fair to say that catholics “always quote mere men because that’s what they trust in?”
—
Tammy, you have been very gracious in your answers and have used much more scripture than most others from the RCC perspective. That is appreciated. The fact still remains that inherently someone supporting the RCC will quote men, especially popes, as a seemingly infallible source. If you do not trust in the claimed infallibility, which I assume you do, then why do you not quote these men as equal with (,really above) scripture?
Tammy wrote: I’ll never understand how you can be so certain that the Protestant interpretations (
—
All in all, I think we see through a dark glass, but yet in the things that God has clearly revealed to us in His Word, when scripture is interpreted in a prayerful, literal, historical, contextual, and grammatical way, the scripture never contradicts itself and thus a proper interpretation can be reached. This is just not the case with the RCC. So many critical issues conflict and it takes quite a dance to get around the arguments made against such enormous flaws.
Here’s a great link that gives an overview of what I’m trying to say:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-158.HTM
Sincerely,
Kit
Nate,
The Catholic Church does not consider the necessity of the sacraments as works but rather strengthening us spiritually with His grace.
A little sample from Catholic Answers:
Jesus promised he would not leave us orphans (John 14:18) but would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect us (John 15:26). He gave the sacraments to heal, feed, and strengthen us. The seven sacraments —baptism, the Eucharist, penance (also called reconciliation or confession), confirmation, holy orders, matrimony, and the anointing of the sick—are not just symbols. They are signs that actually convey God’s grace and love.
The sacraments were foreshadowed in the Old Testament by things that did not actually convey grace but merely symbolized it (circumcision, for example, prefigured baptism, and the Passover meal prefigured the Eucharist. When Christ came, he did not do away with symbols of God’s grace. He supernaturalized them, energizing them with grace. He made them more than symbols.
God constantly uses material things to show his love and power. After all, matter is not evil. When he created the physical universe, everything God created was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). He takes such delight in matter that he even dignified it through his own Incarnation (John 1:14).
During his earthly ministry Jesus healed, fed, and strengthened people through humble elements such as mud, water, bread, oil, and wine. He could have performed his miracles directly, but he preferred to use material things to bestow his grace.
In his first public miracle Jesus turned water into wine, at the request of his mother, Mary (John 2:1–11). He healed a blind man by rubbing mud on his eyes (John 9:1–7). He multiplied a few loaves and fish into a meal for thousands (John 6:5–13). He changed bread and wine into his own body and blood (Matt. 26:26– 28). Through the sacraments he continues to heal, feed, and strengthen us.
Best of all, the promise of eternal life is a gift, freely offered to us by God (CCC 1727). Our initial forgiveness and justification are not things we “earn” (CCC 2010). Jesus is the mediator who bridged the gap of sin that separates us from God (1 Tim. 2:5); he bridged it by dying for us. He has chosen to make us partners in the plan of salvation (1 Cor. 3:9).
The Catholic Church teaches what the apostles taught and what the Bible teaches: We are saved by grace alone, but not by faith alone; see Jas. 2:24).
When we come to God and are justified (that is, enter a right relationship with God), nothing preceding justification, whether faith or good works, earns grace. But then God plants his love in our hearts, and we should live out our faith by doing acts of love (Gal. 6:2).
Even though only God’s grace enables us to love others, these acts of love please him, and he promises to reward them with eternal life (Rom. 2:6–7, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus good works are meritorious. When we first come to God in faith, we have nothing in our hands to offer him. Then he gives us grace to obey his commandments in love, and he rewards us with salvation when we offer these acts of love back to him (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10, Matt. 25:34–40).
Jesus said it is not enough to have faith in him; we also must obey his commandments. “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but do not do the things I command?” (Luke 6:46, Matt. 7:21–23, 19:16–21).
We do not “earn” our salvation through good works (Eph. 2:8–9, Rom. 9:16), but our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace-filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love, combined with our faith, will be rewarded with eternal life (Rom. 2:7, Gal. 6:8–9).
Paul said, “God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work” (Phil. 2:13). John explained that “the way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3–4, 3:19–24, 5:3–4).
Since no gift can be forced on the recipient—gifts always can be rejected—even after we become justified, we can throw away the gift of salvation. We throw it away through grave (mortal) sin (John 15:5–6, Rom. 11:22–23, 1 Cor. 15:1–2; CCC 1854–1863). Paul tells us, “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).
Read his letters and see how often Paul warned Christians against sin! He would not have felt compelled to do so if their sins could not exclude them from heaven (see, for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10, Gal. 5:19–21).
Paul reminded the Christians in Rome that God “will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life for those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness” (Rom. 2:6–8).
Sins are nothing but evil works (CCC 1849–1850). We can avoid sins by habitually performing good works. Every saint has known that the best way to keep free from sins is to embrace regular prayer, the sacraments (the Eucharist first of all), and charitable acts.
Vatican Council II expressed the purpose of the sacraments and the relationship between Christ acting and thereception of the sacraments.
Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy, 59
The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to worship God. Because they are signs, they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it.
Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy, 7
He (Jesus) is present in the sacraments by his power, in such a way that when someone baptizes, Jesus himself baptizes.
The constant faith of the Church has been consistent in the teaching about the sacraments.
1st – 6th century
Church Fathers (from Christian antiquity until Clement of Alexandria (Athens, 150 –215) and Origen (Alexandria, 185 – 254)) used the words sacramentum and mysterionto describe these hidden and holy things in the life of the church.
16th century
The Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) defined sacraments as symbols of holy and invisible graces in visible form. This definition is found in the works of Augustine.
In the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Sacraments are described as follows.
¶ 1084
“Seated at the right hand of the Father” and pouring out the Holy Spirit on his Body which is the Church, Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace. The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the actions of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify.
¶ 1127
Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies.
¶ 1131
The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament.
Note that the Catholic Church does not state that the Sacraments are the only way that these graces are bestowed upon us.
The sacraments exist for both us individually and as part of the Church community.
The fruit of sacramental life is both personal and ecclesial. For every one of the faithful on the one hand, this fruit is life for God in Christ Jesus; for the Church, on the other, it is an increase in charity and in her mission of witness.
Excerp from Dr. Robert J. Schihl and Paul D. Flanagan (Catholic Biblical Apologetics)
All Christians believe in the role of baptism in the life of the Christian. The differences which exist are differences of emphasis—of the necessity of baptism—and not of the call to be baptized. Catholic Christians believe that in the sacrament of baptism the individual is both
• regenerated through water and the Holy Spirit and
• truly incorporated into the Church of Jesus Christ.
Again, I could with a very large post show that all seven sacraments were practiced from the beginning… In my next post though..I do need to show proof of the belief in the Eucharist (The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ)
That was from Romans 2:5-10 and what I was trying to say in the post that got cut off was that I don’t see how a Protestant can be so sure that their interpretations are correct and the RCC is wrong. There is ONE catholic interpretation; there are multiple protestant interpretations. The only common belief that protestants hold is their disdain of rome. they don’t agree on salvation issues, baptism, sacraments, etc.
The RCC does not base the faith+works (faith working through love) doctrine on the verse in James alone. There are MANY verses on which we base this belief. i typed many of them and lost them, don’t have time again. If you are interested check out http://www.scripturecatholic.com/justification.html
but I hope you will quit saying that Catholics “always” quote mere men. I have not quoted anything BUT Scripture and then only from a Protestant canon and translation.
As promised, I would like to speak of The Eucharist. Catholic Answers does a nice job of explaining it biblically and with the early fathers so I humbly defer to them below: I think you will recognize alot of the fathers listed below…
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as “unbiblical,” but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).
“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally” (ibid., 211–12).
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
Tammy,
Have you read this explanation regarding baptism back when it was posted?
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/04/12/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation/
Gerry wrote: “The Catholic Church does not consider the necessity of the sacraments as works but rather strengthening us spiritually with His grace.”
So we perform works to obtain His grace? Last time I checked, grace was a free gift. Otherwise, grace would not be grace.
Kit wrote: If you do not trust in the claimed infallibility, which I assume you do, then why do you not quote these men as equal with (,really above) scripture?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not believe the quotes from the Early Church Fathers are infallible and I don’t think Gerry does either. They are quoted to give a glimpse of what the church (especially those who knew the apostles) believed. We don’t even believe every word written/spoken by the popes is infallible. the bottom line is that we do not believe any man is infallible. we believe that the office of authority that Jesus established through Peter is infallible because it is protected by the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean that a pope cannot sin. It just means that God will protect the church and not let a pope “dogmatically declare” something that would lead us astray.
I’ll let Gerry answer for himself but I don’t think in quoting the ECFs that he believes those quotes are above Scripture. They are more for historical reference. The proclaimed dogma of the church (like the declaration of the Trinity) is what we consider to be equal in authority with Scripture. not the people but the doctrine. hope that makes sense.
Kit, we don’t “perform” sacraments. we don’t perform a work when we “receive” baptism. The sacraments are gifts of grace to us that we “receive.” We receive the Eucharist, etc.
Nate,
Not to be sarcastic, but would you consider reading the scriptures, praying, baptism, preaching, going to church, saying the sinners prayer, answering an “altar call” works since you believe in the necessity of them?
Tammy,
You said:
The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach salvation is earned by works.
Then at the end of the same post, 5 sentences later, you said:
The RCC teaches baptism is necessary b/c Scripture indicates that it is necessary. wouldn’t teaching otherwise be unbiblical?
Leaving aside the question of whether it’s biblical or not, didn’t you just admit that the RCC does teach works are necessary for salvation? Baptism is a work, is it not?
Tammy,
Correct, I use the fathers to show the consistency of the teachings, practices and beliefs of The Catholic Catholic Church from the beginning..
Gerry,
You said:
would you consider reading the scriptures, praying, baptism, preaching, going to church, saying the sinners prayer, answering an “altar call” works since you believe in the necessity of them?
Yes, they are works. Which is why we don’t believe they save anyone. The grace of Christ thru faith alone is what saves.
I’m glad you’re here, but this is just to make sure we don’t waste time or energy w/ rabbit trails and misunderstandings.
Tammy,
thank you for the post. as I saw the head title, ” Faith justfies intially, but works perfect and complete,” It sounds Faith isn’t enought to be jusified by God, so the sinner needs to work to complete. The Nate’s post helped me a lot in order to reaffrim what I have known about the cathoilc way of being saved. Now, it is time to quote from a catholic sister, she said, ” Christ has done 99 percent, we have to cooperate by doing our 1 percent.” Tammy, you might be a protastant, if beliving in faith alone. I, however, have never met anyone claiming like you during dialoguing many catholics. In fact, they don’t know how to be saved because the Bible is too far way for them. A fromer priest Robert A, Chamapgne, said ,” Often people have asked me if I had studied and read the Bible either as a seminarian or a priest, and If so why hadn’t I seen the truth? First of all, the ungenerated man can not see the light. And secondly, In the Roman Catholic system, tradition is on an equal par with the Bible itself. This was affrimed at both the council of Trent and the Second Vatican council, which ststed that The church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truth from the Holy Scriptures alone.”
Alan, I consider baptism to be obedience to God’s command. The RCC teaches that obedience to God’s commands leads to salvation. much of the confusion here is based on the writings of Paul which spoke against circumcision being necessary for salvation. The RCC has never taught that circumcision is necessary for salvation. Circumcision was necessary in the Old Covenant although circumcision alone didn’t save anyone. Obedience to God’s commands, again, is the heart of the matter. Baptism is necessary (at least for those who know about it), it is not an option, it is a command. but baptism alone doesn’t automatically save anyone.
Salavation is FREE for us because we don’t have to PAY the price that Jesus paid on Calvary. But we still have to OBEY God’s commands to stay in His free grace. It is not about “earning” salvation but rather not throwing away the free gift of salvation that God has given you by becoming again a slave to sin.
In additon to the quotaion in my post,my response should be, how blasphemous! I am able to understand the holy furor of brother Martin Luther. No wonder the reformation is not done yet
Tammy,
I didn’t ask you whether baptism ALONE saves. The question is whether faith alone saves or if you think works are necessary too.
You have just said that baptism is “necessary”, so the question is answered.
That, by definition, is adding works to faith for salvation.
(BTW, that incurs the judgment of Galatians 1. That is why we pray for your soul while you have the chance to repent.)
Tammy wrote:
Kit, we don’t “perform” sacraments. we don’t perform a work when we “receive” baptism. The sacraments are gifts of grace to us that we “receive.” We receive the Eucharist, etc.
Tammy,
Even if you “receive” the sacrament…someone is doing the work, someone other than Christ. This gives someone else reason to boast. This work is other than the finished work that Christ performed on the cross, once.
So, in the RCC, the priest possesses sacerdotal power (the power to impart grace through the sacraments). Right?
Please read the following excerpt from http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/catholicscandal.htm :
(the following is simply stunning)
————–
John O’Brien has a popular work called the Faith of Millions. And in that, he has written this. I think it’s really fascinating. “When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration at the mass, he reaches up into the heavens.” You’ve seen that image. “He brings Christ down from his throne and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.” “It is” — listen to this — “a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim.” We’re talking about a priest now. We’re talking about somebody really who is considered supernatural. He has to be, if he has a greater power than angels, including seraphim and cherubim. And why do they say that? Not only because of this grace and this empowerment for a moral life and this engagement in the priesthood of Christ, but because the priest can reach into heaven, bring Christ down from His throne, place Him on our altar to be offered again as the victim for the sins of man. He literally brings Christ down for the sacrifice of the mass.
He goes on writing about the priest and says: “Indeed, it is greater even than the power of the virgin Mary. While the blessed virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man not once, but a thousand times.” “The priest speaks and lo, Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.” He has the power to go to heaven and pull Christ down, and sacrifice him again on the altar of the church.
In the next paragraph, he writes: “Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-regent of Christ on earth? He continues the essential ministry of Christ. He teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ. He pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ. He offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that name ‘alter cristus,’ for a priest is another Christ.” Does that bring a verse to mind? If anybody “comes and preaches another” Christ, we have our own Council of Trent. “Let him be anathema.”
They are viewed as another Christ, “alter cristus.” This bizarre mass, this bizarre attempt to put power in the hands of men, has absolutely nothing to do with the scriptures, and is a wicked twisting of spiritual responsibility and pastoral ministry. To Protestant ears, these are really disturbing assertions. They are to me. What is he talking about when he says that Christ is offered as a sacrifice upon the Roman altar, our altar? What does he mean? That Christ, the omnipotent God: “…bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command, and comes down from heaven to be offered again and again a thousand times in sacrifice.” Isn’t this guy going too far?
Well, the Council of Trent, in its 13th session in October of 1551, promulgated a decree concerning the most holy sacrament of the eucharist. The mass at the end of the decree was a list of canons providing anathemas for those who would reject the Council’s teaching, since these canons often provide short and — they do provide short and succinct definitions of Roman teaching. As I said earlier, I want to give you some of them, especially in the concept of transubstantiation. You know, when Christ comes down, you know how he comes down, right? They take the bread and the wine, and the priest literally turns that into the body and blood of Jesus. And that’s Christ.
So here are Council of Trent pronunciations.
Canon I: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that he is in it only as a sign, a figure or force, let him be anathema.” Pronounce a damnation on anybody who says it’s not actually Jesus Christ in the whole that the priest has brought down.
Canon II: “If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining,” which change the Catholic church most aptly calls transubstantiation, “let him be anathema.”
Canon number VIII: “If anyone says that Christ received in the eucharist is received spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really, let him be anathema.”
This is just perverse. Eleven years later in 1562, the 22nd session of Trent was held. This time the decree promulgated was entitled “Doctrine Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass.” And the decree says this: “In as much as in this divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloodied manner, the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council therefore teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect; that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid.” That is to say that there is salvation in the mass. That is what it’s saying. “For, appeased by this sacrifice,” the mass, “the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins.” So if you go into the mass with the right attitude, you come out pardoned. “For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross.” There’s no difference between what a priest does and what Jesus did on the cross. “Only the manner is different,” it says.
This is directly quoting out of the second chapter out of the decree called “Doctrine Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass.” “The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one. So far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. “Wherefore, according to the tradition of the apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishment, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified.”
So the mass saves the people who are alive there, and the people who are dead and not yet purified. Do you want to debate that? Listen to what Trent said:
Canon number I: “If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema. If anyone says by those words ‘Do this for a remembrance of me’ — if you say that Christ did not institute the apostles priests, and did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his own body and blood — “let him be anathema.” If you say that Christ did not institute the priesthood to offer the mass, you’re anathema.
Canon number III: “If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory one” — if you say there’s no propitiation in the mass — “or that it profits him only who receives and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sin’s punishment, satisfactions and other necessities, let him be anathema.” That is to say, if you say that the mass isn’t propitiatory for the sins of the living, and if you say it’s not propitiatory for the sins of the dead, you’re cursed.
Canon number IV: “If anyone says,” , “that by the sacrifice of the mass a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ” — if you say the mass is a blasphemy, which we would say — “let him be anathema.”
Canon V: “If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints, and in order to obtain their intercession with God as the church intends, let him be anathema.”
And as you read down these canons, you can tell by their answer what the reformers were saying.
Canon VI: “If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors, let him be anathema.”
—————–
Another side note Tammy. You say that you don’t anathematize anyone outside of the RCC. Why not? The RCC does. Do you believe what the RCC says or not? All dogma is perfect right?
Oh Kit,
Don’t you understand! You have to listen to EITHER the Catechism, which says that Muslims “together with us worship the One True God” OR the Council of Trent. It depends on which parish you’re a member of and which priest baptised you. It must; otherwise it doesn’t make any sense.
Gerry,
Thank you for your responses. I must admit I still find the Roman Catholic teaching on this subject confusing and contradictory.
According to the Catholic Answers you provided:
****
Even though only God’s grace enables us to love others, these acts of love please him, and he promises to reward them with eternal life (Rom. 2:6–7, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus good works are meritorious. When we first come to God in faith, we have nothing in our hands to offer him. Then he gives us grace to obey his commandments in love, and he rewards us with salvation when we offer these acts of love back to him (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10, Matt. 25:34–40).
Jesus said it is not enough to have faith in him; we also must obey his commandments. “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but do not do the things I command?” (Luke 6:46, Matt. 7:21–23, 19:16–21).
We do not “earn” our salvation through good works (Eph. 2:8–9, Rom. 9:16), but our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace-filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love, combined with our faith, will be rewarded with eternal life (Rom. 2:7, Gal. 6:8–9). (emphasis mine)
****
Thus, on the one hand, our good works are meritorious such that they will be rewarded with eternal life and salvation. But on the other hand, we do not “earn” our salvation through good works.
Can you help me see how those two statements are not contradictory? Salvation by grace means salvation apart from works. But this paragraph makes good works a necessary prerequisite for salvation.
At the risk of being redundant, I will again cite Clement:
And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Or as the apostle Paul said:
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 2:4–7)
Thanks,
NB
well Alan, I’m sorry that you feel that way. The twisted thing about this is that it seems like you are saying that obedience to God’s commands are not necessary despite the fact that Jesus said, “if you wish to enter the life, keep the commandments” Those are the words of Christ, not the RCC.
Saying Baptism is necessary is in keeping with scripture. It is OBEDIENCE to God not to man. Man didn’t ordain baptism, Christ did. You have followed a totally twisted teaching of Galatians. Paul was speaking about circumcision, not Baptism. Paul told the Galatians about baptism: “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”
Paul told the Galatians about circumcision: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith WORKING through love.” Galatians 5:6
He is not speaking against obedience to commands (one of which is baptism). He says, “who hindered you from obeying the truth?” Galatians 5:7
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that THOSE WHO PRACTICE SUCH THINGS WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Galatians 5:19-21
and you are telling me I am damned for thinking that my actions matter?
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23
The RCC preaches bearing the fruit of the Spirit but it would seem that some want to make a law against that.
Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby FULFILL the LAW of CHRIST. Galatians 6:2
Do not be deceived, (N)God is not mocked; for (O)whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. )Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap IF we do not grow weary. Galatians 6:7-9
May the Lord Bless you and keep you, may the Lord shine His face upon you, and give you peace.
Tammy,
No, I accept what Jesus said, but I take in its proper context.
And no, you are not damned for thinking your actions matter. Nobody denies that. You are damned b/c you think you can add sthg to the perfect, sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His ordained way of saving you from your sin, which is to receive His grace by faith alone.
And you don’t have to cite lots of “do this do that” psgs at me. I understand them. I accept them 100%. Keeping them in their proper place is a far better work (since you’re so concerned about works) than twisting them to pervert the saving Gospel.
It’s like Eph 2:8-10 says: By grace you have been saved, thru faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, that no man may boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which He marked out beforehand that we should walk in them.
1st- faith. Justification.
2nd- works. Sanctification, demonstrating your justification.
Mixing them together makes grace nothing, as Rom 11:6 says: But if it is by grace, it is not on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
Stop making grace no longer grace. All of a sudden it’s all about what YOU do, and that is frightening.
ahh, thanks for the litany of anathemas. The church does not use that word anymore (at least I thik so) preferring the word of “excommunication.” This doesn’t mean that the church is condemning someone to hell, only God can do that. Excommunication is the church’s formal proclamation to the rest of the church that this person is NOT living in accordance with the teachings of the church and has been warned.
I know I sound like a cop out but I have been here most of the day. I am willing to discuss Scripture and I am willing to discuss the current Councils and teachings, particularly the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, but do we have to go back 500 years? The Council of Trent was written to people of a different era. Yes, it was a strong warning to those who were leaving the ONE Catholic faith for numerous faiths (I beleive Luther said they had become like many heads there were so many?). This is not the 1500s. It is appropriate that the church speak to people today where they are in today’s language.
but even if we stick with the word anathema…I believe those whom Christ has entrusted have the authority to open and close the door, so to speak (see Isaiah 22 along with Matthew 16:19). They can pronounce someone as being “outside” of the church. They do so to warn the person as well as the rest of the flock.
and oh yes, the out of print, Faith of Millions that probably no one quoting has actually read…I have a post on that on my blog. as usual people criticze what someone has said about the mass but not actually what is said in the mass…have you read the words of the mass yet to see if the priest is “commanding” Christ? I think you will find that this is NOT the case at all.
Alan, I believe what you say:
1st- faith. Justification.
2nd- works. Sanctification, demonstrating your justification.
My question to you is what if one quits doing the works, quits bearing the fruit, quits keeping the commandment?
What I see is:
But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place–unless you repent. Revelation 2:5
Alan wrote: Stop making grace no longer grace. All of a sudden it’s all about what YOU do, and that is frightening.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be not afraid!
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. Roams 13:1-3
and really you will be judged in the measure that you have judged others…a good reason to always show mercy.
forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE those who trespass against us…
First…this is dogma we’re talking about. When the Council of Trent said something, the Church says it. When the Church says it, it’s infallible, therefore it can’t change according to the RCC system.
Second…Am I correct in assuming that you think the word “anathema” doesn’t mean accursed or damned to Hell? Are not all, according to the RCC, that are outside of the RCC damned to Hell for not belonging to the “one true church”? (yet, as another side note, according to the CCC, muslims are able to gain salvation apart from Christ, which is plain heresy, seems like another contradiction).
Out of print or not, that was a Catholic priest that said that. Who was teaching him that? I would think the RCC. I know full and well what the mass states. The CCC is clear that it is another sacrifice, over and over again.
Christ died once, a single sacrifice that was perfect. That fact alone throws a hitch in quite a bit of RCC doctrine.
Heb 9
24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
to reiterate:
“…offered once to bear the sins of many…will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin…”
It seems disingenous at best to say that “anathema” doesn’t mean pronouncing damnation when if you are outside the church, you canot confess, take communion, etc. The RCC DOES NOT control the gate of heaven as it maintains and it is accursed of God for exalting itself to that position.
The Co. of Trent was 500 years ago, yes.
Can you tell us where those anathemas have ever been lifted? (Hint: You can’t.)
What should it tell us about:
1) your own understanding of Roman dogma?
2) John Paul 2’s liberalising influence on the Roman church?
And BTW, Tammy, you said above that baptism is necessary, and then you’re telling me that you believe 1st justification by faith alone and 2nd sanctification by faith, works, and self-control.
Don’t act like I’m stupid or totally uneducated on Roman dogma, please.
Nate,
So what are the “works” that scripture condemns?
The works that are spoken of in scripture are “the works of the Law (of Moses).
In Galatians chapter 2:
16(yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
21 do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing
So when “works” are mentioned it is in regard to “the works of the Law”.
I think we all agree that we are no longer under “The Law of Moses”. “The Law” prepared the Jews for coming of the promised Messiah.
Galatians 3:
23 Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed.
24 Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian 16 for Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.
26 For through faith you are all children of God 17 in Christ Jesus
Gerry,
I’m sure that Nate B would not disagree that it is not “works” that is condemned (unless, of course, they be evil works; on that we can agree).
Rather, it is the mixing of works in with faith for the acquiring of justification, the forgiveness of our sins.
To clarify the difference of “works” and “works of the Law,” Ephesians 2:8-10 clarifies the issue.
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
V.9 - not as a result of works.
V.10 - so that we do works.
There’s no difference (if we take the text w/o importing outside [Roman] authority) between the works apart from which we are saved by faith and the works we’re prepared for by Jesus.
Hope that helps.
Alan,
I said:would you consider reading the scriptures, praying, baptism, preaching, going to church, saying the sinners prayer, answering an “altar call” works since you believe in the necessity of them?
You said: Yes, they are works. Which is why we don’t believe they save anyone. The grace of Christ thru faith alone is what saves.
I’m glad you’re here, but this is just to make sure we don’t waste time or energy w/ rabbit trails and misunderstandings
I say: My question was, are the above necessary?
Is reading scripture necessary? I would hope you would answer yes.
My point is that these are not “works”, but would you agree that they are necessary to be a faithful Christian?… but not for salvation?
So you don’t believe Romans 10?:
9 for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.
Doing this doesn’t as a Protestant doesn’t save you? Interesting…
Gerry,
(I thought you were Gerry Matatics for a bit, actually, until I saw your comment regarding Benedict XVI. Anyway…)
Reading Scr is necessary…for obedience and sanctification. Not for justification (ie, salvation).
Of course I believe Romans 10, Gerry. I’m an inerrantist as many/most here are.
And that’s precisely it - believe and confess (repent, call Jesus “Lord”).
Gerry,
Thanks for your responses. Your quotes on communion (the Eucharist) are interesting — though I don’t ultimately see how they undo the Reformation doctrines of sola fide or sola Scriptura. For that matter, the early church fathers do not really support the eucharist as it is practiced today by the Roman church, since every Christian in the congregation was allowed to partake of both the bread and the cup. But we will have to save our discussion on that for another time.
The Reformation was not primarily about the eucharist. It was about the doctrines of sola fide and sola Scriptura (along with sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli deo gloria). So I would like to stick to those.
Regarding your comments about the Protestant view of faith and works … allow me to respond with the following points.
1) We believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
2) We believe the only “work” necessary for our salvation was the finished work of substitutionary atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross. We can add nothing to His once-for-all perfectly-sufficient sacrifice.
3) We believe that saving faith is not a human work (Eph. 2:8-9; 2 Tim. 2:25). Rather, it is a gift from God.
4) We believe that the “fruits of repentance” (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20) are the good works which necessarily flow out of true, saving faith. They are results (”fruits”) of conversion, not a means to salvation. These “works” do not justify us. Rather, they indicate that we have been justified, and regenerated by the Spirit (cf. Titus 3:4-7).
This is what the Reformers taught (see the quotes I provided in the comments on Tuesday). It is what they meant by sola fide. This is also what the church fathers taught (as I have attempted to show briefly above).
The “fruits of repentance” have absolutely no meritorious value before God — they are works that flow from genuine faith, but they are not the basis for our salvation or the reception of eternal life. Only the finished work of Christ is such a basis.
I believe the Roman Catholic Church confuses the basis of justification with the results of justification, such that the Church mixes faith and good works. In contrast, Protestantism teaches that good works flow from the faith that justifies – they are the fruits of saving faith, not the basis of it (in any part).
As Paul wrote in Romans 11:5-6: “In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”
Thanks.
- NB