Comments

1. Ray says on Dec 8, 2008 @ 09:20 PM:

   The most controversial point of contention between the Catholic (re: Council of Trent) and Protestant understanding of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith is this:Is justification primarily an infusion of grace which results in a change in man's spiritual or moral nature, as part of a co-operative and interactive process (hence, the term "progressive justification") between the Catholic and God working together in a kind of synergistic partnership involving faith in Christ plus obedience to the Church's teachings, the law, sacraments, and good works in order to be saved? Or, is justification a declarative act (legal or forensic justification)in which God imputes the perfect righteousness of Christ to the believer and justifies the believer instanteously and completely on the basis of that imputed righteousness?

   If, it is the former, then salvation is not solely by grace alone apart from any works of righteousness that we can do ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; Isaiah 64:6), but rather is a "works-righteousness" salvation. Rome denies that man is justified through the imputation of Christ's righteousness alone to the believer.

   The principle which guided the Reformation found expression in "monergestic" regeneration (God, working alone, independent of man)--the doctrine that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of God's sovereign grace bestowed by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. This, we find to be true in the conversion of the apostle Paul, a former enemy and severe persecutor of the Christian church, before God suddenly, graciously and powerfully transformed his life on the Damascus road in such a way that Christ became the object of the soul's affections and desires, and he most freely and willingly became a trustworthy disciple of Jesus Christ in obedient faith. Also, this was true in the conversion of Lydia "whose heart the LORD OPENED; that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul" (Acts 16:14, KJV). In short, God opened (or regenerated) her heart through the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit, thus enabling her spiritually to respond most freely, willingly and positively to the [gospel] message that Paul preached.

   Faith, if it is genuine or saving faith, is not empty or dead; that is to say, saving faith always produces, manifests, or evidences itslef in good works. But let us not make the tragic mistake, as many have, of thinking that we can somehow contribute to our justification in God's plan of salvation by our own "works of righteousness" (see again Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Isaiah 64:6). The Christian desires to serve God and do good works in gratitude for what Christ has done (His death and resurrection) on his behalf to save him from sin and eternal ruin. In other words, his service to God and performance of good works are the result, fruit or evidence that his faith is genuine (see Ephesians 2:10) and not in order to contribute to salvation in any way by his good works--which is why the Reformers insisted salvation is by God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

   The fact remains that the Roman Catholic gospel denies the sufficiencey of the once for all time,Propitiatory and Substitutionary Sacrifice of the sinless Son of God in our place for our sin on Calvary's Cross (Hebrews 10:10-14; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 2:2). Its priesthood "immolates" Him on Catholic altars over and over in the sacrifice of the Mass (read Hebrews 10:10-14).

   A Catholic is anathematized if he denies that the Mass is an ongoing propitiatory sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the living and the dead. He is anathematized if he says that the sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to procure forgiveness of sins and a home in heaven.

2. Anonymous says on Dec 9, 2008 @ 04:14 PM:

   When Roman Catholics use words like faith and grace they have their own definitions and interpretations to go with them. There is a hint of it in the statement of this when the pope talks about "the grace of faith." Catholic doctrine teaches that faith, even though prompted by an infusion of grace, is considered meritorious by God. Hence, we end up back with the sinner earning his salvation by the merits of his faith. It is all rather sad. I hope that the pope is genuinely trying to reform Catholic doctrine and bring them back to Scripture. Perhaps he is trying to do it more tactfully than Luther. Though I pray for this, I am not holding my breath.

3. David Castlen says on Dec 10, 2008 @ 10:03 AM:

   Sometimes I think this issue is a non-issue between Catholics (me, thank Peter Kreeft) and Protestants. As Peter Kreeft says in [Catholic Christianity]on page 23..."Belief alone is not enough to save us from sin and bring us to heaven. 'You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder' (James 2:19). But faith does save us. We are [justified by faith] (Rom 5:1), if it is a faith that is alive and thus produces good works (cf Jas 2:17)."
   Kreeft goes on, "Non-Catholics who, through no fault of their own, do not believe the Catholic faith is true can still be saved by the faith in their hearts that leads to love and seek God. For Christ promised that 'he who seeks finds' (Mat 7:8). So while correct belief without faith cannot save anyone, faith without correct belief can."

   I have been wrong so often I hesitate to debate, but I think our Protestant friends may be assuming SATISFACTION when they read the infalible Word "We are saved by faith" and are not reading NECESSARY. It is necessary to have faith but not satisfactory. Ask the rich young man who asked Jesus what must I do to be saved.

   Will, what is faith?
   Definitions are of two types (a short [very short] summary from Kreeft's "Socratic Logic."):
   Nominal and Real; Nominal being what is the use of the word, what is the common vanagular - Webster. Then there is the Real definition, what something (really) is. Real definitions are given to us as differnt kinds; albeit, they do not conflict. Here you will understand:
   An essential definition: gives the genus and the specific difference. The whatness of something,
   A definition of properties; provides what comes from the essence of something, e.g., able to speak, plane figure with 180 degrees in its three interior angles
   A definition by accidents: a charactoristic that something has as a result of its basic (essential) nature, but without it (the accident) it still retains its nature; e.g., Man-an animal with two legs and no gills. There is at least one man with gills. I saw him at a carnaval.
   By causes:
   Efficient cause - what made this something; green -is the cause of the refraction of light.
   Final cause - what the purpose of this thing is: eye - to see; a pen - to write
   Material cause - what something is made up of: a house - is made up of a roof, walls, electrical system, plumbing system (unless it is a house in Ky.)
   Effective cause - what something can cause; a carcinogen causes cancer.

   With all these forms of definitions, what I see happening is a contorsion of unintended ambiguities. One says Faith is belief another says no it is trust, and based on these two truths (they are both true) the arguement gets confusing and any proposition made is one step too far in the argument. If the two parties are "in it to win" neither will win and all will loose; i.e, they will not come any closer to Christ as that is the loss of losses. I know all know Augustine's famous quote, "Thou hast made thee for His pleasure....(you finish it)..."

   Here are most of the definitions that the Catechism gives for Faith:
   Article 26 Faith is man's response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning in his life.
   Article 43 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God. With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls thishuman response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith.
   Article 144 To obey (from the Latin [ob-audire], to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.
   Article 153 Faith is a Grace......
   Article 154 Faith is a human act....
   Article 155 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace:"Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."
   Article 156 to Article 159 Faith and Understanding
   Faith is certain
   Faith seeks understanding
   Faith does not conflict with science; science enhances faith
   Article 160 The freedom of Faith
   Article 161 The necessity of Faith
   Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since 'without faith it is impossible to please (God)' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'but he who endures to the end.'"
   Article 162 Persevence of Faith....
   Article 163 Faith - the beginning of eternal life
   Article 164....Faith related to evil and suffering...walking by faith and not by sight
   Article 165...the [witnesses of faith]
   Article 166...Although faith is a personal act it is not an isolated act..."no one can believe and live alone....."
   Article 170 - 171 The language of Faith
   Article 172 - 175 There is only one faith
   SUMMARY:
   Article 176 Faith is a personal adherence of the whole man to God who reveals Himself. It involves an assent of the intellect and wil to the self-revelation God has made through His words and deeds.
   Article 177...what "to beleive" references
   Article 178...We must believe
   Article 179 .... Faith is a gift....
   Article 180..."Beleiving" is a human act....
   Article 181 We believe all "that which is contained in the work of God, written or handed down, and which the Church proposes for belie for belief as divinel revealed"
   Article 183 Faith is necessary for salvation.....
   Article 184 "Faith is a foretaste of the knowledge that will make us blessed in the life to come"
   Article 181..."Believing" is an ecclesial act.....

   Is faith the most important virtue? I think the answer is no if you are asking for the final end virtue, and I think yes if you are looking for the most important step to get to the final end virtue. Clearly, Scripture says that Love is the most important virtue, "If I have faith to....but do not have love then...." But how can I love; what do I need to love? The answer is Faith.

4. Isaac says on Dec 10, 2008 @ 11:57 PM:

   David,

   I am very thankful for your thoughtful response and I understand the point you are making. I agree with some of what you have said and am a Protestant who has respect for Catholicism and who came out of Catholicism. But, of course, I have to make a few comments and ask a few questions because your post brought some questions up in my mind.

   1. I think it is easy to quote certain verses of Scripture without really dealing with the contexual point the author was making. Protestants and Catholics both could bring verse after verse to bare on their position and this is what has been done for centuries now. For instance, about your distinction between Satisfication and Necessity you said: "Just ask the rich young man who asked Jesus what must I do to be saved." And if I took that story on face value it appears you have a good point. But then I could simply take you to one of the most famous verses in Scripture to show the contrary point, John 3:16. I could argue that if language means anything Jesus said that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Therefore if someone believes he will not perish. Jesus made no qualifications here. He didn't say how long the the person is supposed to belive, or how evidenct his belief is he simply said if someone believes he will never perish. However, I would not do this because it is obvious that based on one's theological position this verse may be interpreted in different ways.

   2. So my main problem is with the passages you use to back your position that faith is simply one virtue among many that is needed for salvation. Whether the rich young ruler, or James chapter 2, I have read many commentaries that ably interpret these passages in a way that lines up easily with the Protestant concept of salvation and justification. So appealing to these verses simply repeats the debate that has been raging and it really doesn't solve anything. I could bring just as many verses that seem to speaking of satisfication by faith.

   3. Therefore I think the dialogue needs to be rased in a different format. And I actually think this format is on a philisophical level which you do delve into. The question is one of systematic theology. Since both positions can use the Bible to argue for their points then which position best lines with what the Bible teaches about other relevant doctrines? For instance, what does the Bible teach about man? What does the Bible teach about the nature of grace? What does the Bible teach about the nature of life?

   4. See the Protestants, at least a large part of them, have problems with believing that someone could be a child of God at one point and that not one at another, and then back in the family again. They see a clear distinction in the Bible between the children of the devil and the children of God. They see the way God reacts with these people as distinct. For instance, since a child of the devil is currently under God's wrath then nothing he can do will please God. However, convesly, since a child of God is under God's grace then there is nothing he can do to lose God's favor being that grace by definition is unmeritorious. If you cannot earn grace how can you lose it? These are the problems Protestants have with the Catholic understanding of a progressive justification and salvation. They cannot see how this is truly salvation by grace. They simply see it as another system of religious legalism that attempts to earn God's favor by merit. Now I understand how Catholics would answer this accusation and I do think they have some good answers here. But this is more where the debate lies: On the nature of grace, salvation, man, works, and faith. All these need to be addressed if the true nature of the disagreement is to be brought out. Addressing one of them, or simply quoting a few scriptures is too simplistic.

   My Questions:

   1. What is your definition of grace?
   2. What is your definition of eternal life?
   3. Assuming the Catholics are correct in their understanding of a lifetime, progressive salvation (a salvation that takes a lifetime of a relationship with God to obtain):
   a. How is this good news(gospel), seeing we fall from our relationship with God all the time and thus are in constant fear of damnation. And being human we may be guilty when we don't even know it, so how can we ever be sure we are right with God? Only the moment after confession?

   b.Those who are sucessful in this lifelong struggle, how are they not to boast that they made it when others didn't? Should not God get all the praise?

   c. Even Mother Teresea, in her writings, showed time periods of great doubt and lack of faith in God's help and protection of her and she represents a rare example of faithfulness. What if she would have perished in the midst of one of these "dark nights of the soul?" What of us who have not been even close to as faithful as her?

   d. Being that we all are closer and more obedient to God at different times in our life, wouldn't it be more prudent for us to die during our obedience before we again slip away from this close fellowship?

   e. How is progressive salvation any different from the Old Testament system?

   I understand these questions are loaded with my own assumptions and I would appreciate you correcting me where I am wrong in my assumptions about the Catholic understanding of salvation. This is the way I understand it and have heard it presented and these are the types of questions that always come up. I don't in any way imagine that there are not good answers to these questions, but I think these are the philisophical problems that Protestants have with Catholicsm. I look forward to your response.

5. David says on Dec 11, 2008 @ 06:12 AM:

   Holy catfish! there is a lot lot here to address! I do not mean to be insincere, but you seem to be a true loving genuine believer in Jesus. I know this sounds plastic and I do not have anything to sell. You really sound like someone I will be able to dialogue with.
   When I left the Baptist Church I was in, it was the most difficult thing I have ever done; I am still very close to those Children of God. Often we meet for coffee. One of the writers that got me to investigate The Faith was J.P. Moreland, particularly his book "Love the Lord Your God with All Your Mind." I hope I have the title right. I could read and listen to him all day long.
   Well, I am rambling. I am in business for myself and yesterafternoon became envolved in an acitivity that does not afford me the time I would like to address this. BUT! I will; however, my responses will take time.
   I am not comfortable in this forum not because of the people but my systems understanding. I do a much better job via the "regular" email system. Would that be OK, if we corresponded via email - if not well OK.
   I will start responding to your reply in a couple of days if it is OK with you?
   I am excited about your reply.
   God bless

6. Ray says on Dec 13, 2008 @ 06:36 PM:

   With all due respect, Isaac, your questions; for example, “If you cannot earn grace , how can you lose it? shows that you really do not understand the protestant objections to the Catholic teaching of a progressive justification and salvation., and you would be greatly helped by a systematic study of the biblical teaching on the nature of man, sin and grace in salvation, involving careful consideration of the meaning of biblical texts as originally translated in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament (the meaning of which can be vastly different from certain words, phrases, and constructions in the English language) and proper regard for time-honoured principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) that allow scripture to interpret itself, harmonizes the scriptural teaching in its biblical context (verse, chapter, book, entire Bible) into a unified whole and recognizes that scripture never contradicts itself because God, the Holy Spirit--its source of inspiration and divine authority--cannot lie or contradict Himself. For example, the Holy Spirit, the supreme author and teacher of divine revelation according to 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21; John 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:12-14, and many other passages (through human instruments or writers enabled by the Spirit of God to pen his inspired, infallible and authoritative Word) would not say one thing in a particular verse or passage concerning biblical doctrine and then say something elsewhere in scripture that directly contradicts that doctrinal teaching. And this is one principle of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) that is often abused today because there are some difficult passages of scripture (I.e. Galatians 5:4;1 Corinthians 9:27; 2 Peter 2:20-22; Hebrews 6:4-6; Revelation 3:5; etc.) that are purported to teach that the righteous or truly regenerate, saved believers (not merely a professing Christian) can fall away from God’s grace, so as to be eternally lost and damned when they clearly teach no such thing. For example, when the apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:27: “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means , when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway’ (KJV), he definitely was not saying here that he feared he would become lost or lose his salvation. For biblical confirmation, comparing 1 Corinthians 9:27 with many other scriptures on this doctrinal teaching, first read 2 Timothy 1:12, in which he states ,”For I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day “ ( namely, the Day he would stand in his glorified body in the presence of the Lord Jesus in all His majesty and power).. Does “I know” sound like Paul feared that he was not safe, certain and secure about his salvation, and that he would be eventually rejected and become a reprobate? Unequivocally “NO !”. He was simply teaching the necessity of exercising self-discipline and perseverance in 1 Corinthians 9:27. That is why he exhorts believers at Philippi to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,“ yet carefully adds the reason or motive for doing so: “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12-13). We are not to be passive in our walk with the Lord and just sit back and enjoy the ride. There is a race to be run for a crown , and not only do we have to persevere , but we will persevere by the grace of God because true believers are always preserved by the grace of God. That is what Paul means when he says, “…He (God) will keep what I have committed to Him until that day.” Paul is simply teaching what many fail see today; namely, that perseverance is divinely and inextricably linked with divine preservation in salvation--that it is the Christian’s responsibility to persevere in the faith through trials, doubts, and difficulties, and those who truly belong to Christ will persevere because of the preserving grace of a sovereign God, who ensures or guarantees our perseverance in the faith from beginning to end. Thank God it is that way because if we had to persevere in our own strength apart from God’s preserving grace, we would all become permanent castaways and be forever lost. This does not mean that true believers will not sin, stumble and fall (James 1:2 states it is “when“ you fall, not “If“ you fall)) but if there faith is genuine saving faith (there is also a false or counterfeit faith), they will not be content to live in the old corrupt and sinful lifestyle that they once lived before conversion to Christ, but will repent and turn again to the Lord, who is ready, able and willing to restore such (Read 1 John 1:5-10).

   There is no case in the entire Bible of a truly saved Christian not being an over-comer. There are many cases of false professors or spurious converts not becoming over-comers (who did not lose their salvation because they never had it in the first place). The overall report of scripture is consistent and uncompromisingly definite and certain on this matter : “For the Lord will not cast off (or away) His people, nor will He forsake His inheritance” (Psalm 94: 14). Listen to the words of Jesus in John 17:2: “Those whom You (His Father) gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition (here referring to Judas who betrayed Him), that the scripture might be fulfilled” (NKJV, compare John 6:37, 39). See also Ecclesiastics 3:14, John 6:37-39; 10:27-29; John 17:2; Psalm 37:23, 24, 28 (Verse 28 says The Lord does not forsake His saints; they are preserved forever); Psalm 89: 33-34; Romans 8:28-30, 37-39; Jermiah 32:40; Philippians 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5). “Saints” is just another biblical name for true believers in Jesus Christ often used interchangeably with “brethren” as 1 Corinthians 1:2 makes perfectly clear: “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified (set apart or called unto holiness) in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” See also Ephesians 1:1: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus” It has nothing to do with any holy office or “sainthood” conferred upon special people by some ecclesiastical order or hierarchy. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all saints, just as every true believer (disciple) in Christ is a saint today according to scripture (I.e. Ephesians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Psalm 16:3; Ephesians 3:8; Daniel 7:21).

   Argue about scriptural interpretation all you want, but to insist that genuine Christians (not merely professing) can ultimately be rejected by God and become reprobates again after having been elected by the Father, justified by Christ and convicted, drawn, regenerated , sealed, adopted and sanctified ( or set apart) by the Spirit of the Living God (I.e. Ephesians 1:4-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Timothy 1:9; John 6:44; 16:7-11; Ephesians 2:1,5; John 3:3; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8: 28-30, etc) is unquestionably to strive stubbornly and wilfully against the overwhelming testimony of scripture. For confirmation, please read the following verses and allow God’s Spirit to reveal His truth to your heart and mind: Ecclesiastics 3:14; Psalm 37:23, 24, 28; Psalm 89:33-34; 94:14; Jeremiah 32:40; John 6:37, 39; John 10:27-29; 17:2,9, 12, 24; Ephesians 1:13-14; Romans 8:28-30, 37-39, etc. There are many more, all of which place due biblical emphasis on the true eternal security of “genuine believers” , not the eternal security so popular today of those who merely profess to be saved but live no differently than unbelievers; not the eternal security of those who are only Christian in name, not even the eternal security of those who have attended church faithfully all their lives, even made a decision for Christ in the past (via some emotional plea of some preacher) but show no real evidence of a transformed life and perseverance in the faith in the present; but rather true (biblical) eternal security---the eternal security of those whose back is to the world and whose face is toward God; whose affections are set on things above, not on the things of this world; who are painfully aware of their sins and freely and willingly confess them; who daily yearn for communion with God and grieve over anything in themselves that displeases their blessed Lord; who know “that in their flesh dwells no good thing ,” and who prayerfully and carefully endeavour to walk as saved people should and constantly morn their faults and their failures--in short, the eternal security of all who are genuinely and authentically saved.

   Thus, when we have received from the Holy Spirit this eternal truth that none of God’s truly saved and blood-bought children shall ever perish or be eternally lost, as attested by the many scriptures (above), we know that the few obscure and difficult verses alleged to teach that one can fall from grace so as to be forever lost (I.e. Gal. 5:4; 1 Corinthians 9:27; Rev. 3:5; Heb. 6:4-6; 2 Peter 2:20-22) cannot possibly mean that, because the Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself in His Word--He unquestionably will not firmly establish the truth concerning His eternal preservation of His true children or saints (believers) very explicitly and emphatically in many biblical texts in one area of Scripture and then teach the very opposite of that truth in another.

   Argue about interpretation all you want (and yes, there is clearly a right way to interpret scripture, as well as a wrong way to interpret scripture, as I have already indicated, if we are to arrive at a true understanding of God‘s Word)), but I would not argue with the plain words of Jesus Christ spoken in what I consider the most sobering and profound warning in all scripture: “Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:21-23). Notice carefully, although they have done “many wonderful works”, Christ's stern rebuke “I never knew you” clearly reveals they did not have a real (saving) relationship with Him and their works are pronounced by Christ as works of “iniquity," because they did not spring from genuine or saving faith, as attested by scripture: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Heb. 11:6) and "For what does the scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Romans 4:3)."But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses (the very best we can do) are as filty rags..." (Isaiag 64:6). Obviously, they are professing Christians (those who only are “Christian” in name) and not possessing Christians; that is, true believers who have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, which is why Christ tells them "I never knew you". This is consistent with the biblical teaching in numerous texts regarding the division of humanity into "children of God" and "children of the devil" (1 John 3:10); "saved" and "lost" (1 Corinthians 15:2 compare 2 Corinthians 4:3 (NKJV, "perishig"); " believers and unbelievers" (1 Timothy 4:12 compare 2 Corinthians 6:14). Yes, we are all the Creator's offspring (Acts 17:28)by virtue of our physical creation and birth in the image of God (Genesis 1:27( as children [descendents) of Adam's race, but only those who receive Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour in true repentance and faith are His children or sons and daughters, as scripture clearly shows: "But as many as received Him [Jesus Christ], to them gave He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1: 12-13). There is a physical birth by which we become children of Adam' race or family and a new or spiritual birth (from above or "of God") by which we become children or sons and daughters of God. Only then (that is, after believing and receiving Jesus as Lord and Saviour, can we acknowledhe God as our heavenly Father and cry "Abba Father" (Romans 8:15). Does that mean that God, in His grace and mercy, sends little babies who are not conscious of sin and wrongdoing, and die in the womb or in infancy to hell? Of course not! God is the perfectly just and righteous Judge of all and His judgments are always right (Psalm 19:9). On the other hand, for those who spurn His grace and reject His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31).
   This brings us to the important question of what is the clear teaching of scripture on what constitutes genuine or saving faith and, most importantly, what is the SOURCE or origin of saving faith? We will look at this next comment, but I will end here with this important note: One cannot understand the Gospel of God’s grace in Jesus Christ and the nature, origin, and necessity of saving faith in salvation and redemptive history unless it is divinely revealed by God, the Holy Spirit, through the vehicle of the preached Word. That is why the apostle Paul, a former persecutor of the Christian church, said in Galatians 1:11-12: “But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached to me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (specifically on the Damascus road in Acts 9 when Paul was powerfully converted). Compare Galatians 1: 15-16: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son [Jesus Christ] in me, that I might pteach Him among the Gentiles…” In short, if you are not a believer in Jesus Christ and have not yet received the spiritual life that only God can give through faith in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, all of what I have said thus far will be as clear as muddy water. I will pray that God will give you understanding by His Spirit and will reveal Himself to you in all His glory and power. Take care and God bless.

   
   Of course, there are also many verses ( I.e. Romans 3:21,22; 5:17,18; 9:6; Acts 13:39; John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 19; 2 Peter 3: Revelation 12:9) which, although they employ universal terms such as “all”, “world” “whole world”, “whosoever,” etc

7. Isaac says on Dec 13, 2008 @ 09:09 PM:

   Ray,

   I'm actually very surprised and confused by your response. Thank you for the time you spent and for the lecture. But you could have saved much time in just telling me you're a Calvinist and you accept all their teachings because I have heard Calvinism presented many times and this is just a reiteration of it. I'm not sure if you realize it or not but though you use many scriptures you're own interpretation is filled with philisophical presumptions which you use when approaching the text to begin with. This doesn't mean that you're wrong it simply means that your interpretation is not necessarily the valid one and is not inductive although you present it as such.

   The reason I am confused with your response is because I do not know what you are responding to. You didn't clarify any of my statements that you were addressing. I myself have been a Calvinist and still agree with much of it. I believe Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, died for the sins of the world, is the perfect sacrifice for our sins and all who believe are saved from their sins, reconciled with God, and sealed with the Holy Spirit. I don't see why you had to talk to me like I didn't know or believe these things.

   Also, I am pefectly aware of Hermeneutics and Exegesis of the Biblical text and of the various practices of it. But I am not arrogant enough to think that my understanding of Hermeneutics and Theology is obviously the best and right one. I think many good Christians who have rejected Calvinism have still done mighty things for God. I think there are sincere Catholics, sincere Arminians, sincere Baptists (many closer to Arminian) who would disagree with your interpretation of many of the texts you gave and who would disagree with your systemtatic theology. I myself would agree with much of what you said but I think some it is more dogmatic then scriptual. For instance, the part about perserverance I think is at least weakly supported.

   I will say that you don't deal much with alternate passages that bring trouble to the Calvinst viewpoint. And there are many. I was once a dedicated Calvinist but have since began to question some of their theology for the very fact that they assume that the Gosepl = Calvinsim, and therefore anyone who does not espouse a strong Calvinist doctrine is to be viewed with suspicion. I think this is not pleasing to Christ. I remeber when I was a young student in undergrad and I was beginning to learn about Calvinism. I asked a Calvinist: "What is Calvinism?" To which she replied "It's the gospel." I since have learned otherwise. Again, I agree probably with 75 percent of what Calvinists believe but I just don't like how they treat others who do not fully agree with them.

   Maybe you didn't mean to but to me you came across as shoving the Bible down my throat and it even seemed like you were questioning my own love for Christ and my salvation. If you would like to further talk about certain passages and do a real exegesis of the certain passages I am up for it. But to be honest I don't find it very benefical to talk about the five points. It often gets nowhere, neither side is convinced otherwise and it is pointless. I'm more concerned with spreading the gospel to this modern culture and with worshiping Christ together with other children of God.

   And I think you may misunderstand the difference with Catholics and Protestants. The difference is complex and must be addressed on many fronts. The Catholics have some legitame reasons for believing how they do and they do not just pull everything out of the air. Some of their bible interpretation is serious and strong and that is why James 2 and many of the statements of Jesus in the Gospels are taken to support their view. They would simply just take all those verse you use to back up justification as God declaring righteous and they would see them as God infusing us with righteousness so that we are able to obey God. But this obedience is a lifelong task that must be done within the church and which could eventually fail. I don't agree with their understanding but I also don't just throw Bible verses at them as if somehow this proves something, for them to just throw other verses back at me. I think the Bible does not contradict and can be reconciled but it is not always easy and we must be very humble when approaching the task of Biblical interpretation.

   Peace

8. Anonymous says on Dec 14, 2008 @ 10:13 AM:

   Isaac, I certainly did not mean to come across as wanting to push the bible down your throat. If it seemed that way, I apologize. I used so much csripture simply in an attempt to show that any system of theological truth must be coherent and consistent in harmonizing other scriptures--which I believe Calvinism is with all respect to James 2. I assume you were referring to faith without works is dead. This does not contradict what the apostle Paul said that we are justified by faith apart from works. Paul was talking about the requirements for salvation ("By grace through faith in Christ apart from works) whereas James is dealing with the nature of saving faith, whick is not a dead or empty faith but will always manifestor evidence itself in good works. In other words, good works is the fruit, evidence or result of salvation, but not the cause of it. I believe you know that. Yes, it is not easy to reconcile fifficult passages in the Bible; for example, those that employ universal terms such as "all" "world" "whole world" "whosoever" with scriptures that teach clearly that Christ came to save His elect or special people (and there are many) but we have to try (2 Tim. 2:15). I have done an exegesis of many of these passages, so I don't think that will be necessasry. Have a great day and God bless.

9. Thomas Cook says on Dec 14, 2008 @ 01:39 PM:

   When I became Catholic 2 years ago, after being evangelical for 8 years, the core issue was whether this concept of being made into sons and daughters of God, of sharing in the divine life by virtue of the Incarnation, was effecting our theology. It seemed to me that the Reformers abandoned this mystical aspect in their soteriology. The Reformed tradition emphasizes a monergistic, rationalistic, and Gnostic interpretation of soteriology. E.g. monergistic: a creature cannot properly 'cooperate' with its creator... rationalistic: it's either/or: either man is not involved at all, or our doctrine is lost ... and Gnostic: matter is evil, man's free-will is corrupted to the core, the idea of God's grace regenerating the will itself, picking it up off the ground and giving it the grace to participate and cooperate.

   But our sonship and divinization, our participation in the divine life of the Trinity, are mysteries. The Reformed doctrines, like all doctrines of man, intentionally are 'uncomfortable' with the mystery. All of the verses below, show that the traditional, orthodox notion described above are profoundly biblical. As a Protestant, you have to take the mystery out of these verses. There are parts of your theology which are 'offlimits!' to these verses.

   
   2 Peter 1.4 “...he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature...”

   John 17.10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine.

   Romans 8.17 co-heirs with Christ...that we may also share in his glory...

   2 Corinthians 6.1 As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain.

   2 Thessalonians 2.14 He called you... that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

   John 17.22 I have given them the glory that you gave me...

   John 20.17 I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to my God and your God...

   Hebrews 2.10-11 In bringing many sons to glory... So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.

   John 10.34-35 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken...

   Colossians 3.4 when Christ appears, you also will appear with him in glory...

10. Ray says on Dec 14, 2008 @ 07:18 PM:

    I commend Pope Benedict for attempting to come to terms with what the Bible says about justification, but as already mentioned (and seen in some of the comments) there are many theological ideas and definitions about what constitutes justification and faith--and in this respect Catholics are no exception. Protestants believe the Bible is the sole authority of practice and faith, not tradition, or the Bible and tradition. Therefore, creeds and cathechism , as important as they are, must be faithful and true to scripture.

    I , too, like a little mystery (I.e. the Trinity),but not mysticism or Gnosticism, as Thomas mentioned, which was a form of heresy in the Bible. The Pope mentioned the “grace of faith” which raises the question of what is grace and faith? Does the Pope mean by “the grace of faith” what protestants mean by “saving faith”? I don’t think so. We must carefully define the biblical use of these terms in the work of redemption. “Systematic Theology” by Louis Berkhof defines grace, firstly, in the most fundamental sense of the word as “the ultimate cause of God’s elective purpose, of the sinner’s justification, and of his spiritual renewal; and the prolific sense of all spiritual and eternal blessings. It is God’ free, sovereign, undeserved favour or love to man, in his state of sin and guilt, which manifests itself in the forgiveness of sin and deliverance from its penalty, and secondly, as a designation of the objective provision which God made in Christ for the salvation of man.”

    When we examine closely what the scriptures say about man’s unregenerate and spiritually lost condition as being one of being spiritually dead to the things of God (read Ephesians 2:1), spiritually blind to the kingdom of God and his need for Christ (John 3:3; 2 Corinthians 4:3; Ephesians 4:18), spiritually hostile to God (Rom. 8:7) ,possessing neither the ability to receive the Gospel truth and Christ nor even the desire to have such ability (1 Corinth. 2:14; John 6:44; 1 Corinth 1:18), we can fully appreciate why we [protestants] say “Salvation is all of God’s grace” because faith originates with God and not us. The conditions of fallen, reprobate men/women , as described above, are sufficient to show that a sinner cannot absolutely come to Christ unless God first does something in the sinner’s spiritually dead, blind and hostile nature. That something is the new birth or regeneration, which is God giving the sinner the spiritual life that enables us to do what he must do (repent and believe), but cannot do because of his bondage to sin.--and this supernatural working of the Spirit of God is monergistic,(God working alone, independent of man), as Thomas mentioned.. We believe through grace (Acts 18:27) , that is to say, out of God’s grace (unmerited favour) we are enabled to believe. We don’t believe and then get God’s grace, as scripture makes clear. How can a sinner without faith (unregenerate or unsaved) exercise that which he does not have? He cannot believe in Christ until God, the Holy Spirit, gives him life and ability to do so. In short, only unmerited, objective faith, which comes from God as His spiritual grace or free gift to us (see Ephesians 2:8-10) through the regenerating and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit--and which always issues forth in a transformed life and genuine assurance of sins forgiven and eternal life in Jesus Christ--saves.

    Such grace is unmerited (that is, one cannot earn it) because, as scripture clearly shows, we possess neither the ability nor desire to come to Christ ; indeed, in our natural unregenerate state we are even hostile to the very idea of coming to Christ--and we know from experience (if we have unsaved friends) how true that is. Secondly, such grace is objective because faith is only as good and trustworthy as the object (or, in this case Person of Christ) into which it is placed. Faith which originates from within oneself (subjective faith, (one can distinguish intellectual and temporal faith,from saving faith) does not save, otherwise everyone who claims to have faith irrespective of what kind of faith it is, would be saved. Nor does it matter as to the degree of such faith. For example, it is much better to have a little faith that 10 inches of ice on the pond will support you than a lot of faith in one inch of ice on the pond. Further, if faith originates with us (and not God); that is to say, it is within our ability and will to believe in Christ in and of ourselves at any time, then such faith is neither unmerited nor the free gift of God’s redeeming grace. In truth, such faith is meritorious because it is the means by which we gain acceptance in the sight of God. Dare we think for one moment that there is some virtue in our faith in and of ourselves that merits our justification or standing before God.? It is Christ, the sinless Lamb of God (not our faith per se) Who alone justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5; 5:9). Faith is simply a term for our spiritual union with Christ. In short, the Christian stands justified (declared righteous) before God because he is in Christ, Who alone justifies the ungodly.

    Because, as mentioned, saving faith is objective and involves trust in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and His redemptive work, it, of necessity, must consist of more than mere knowledge of certain facts about Christ and giving approval or mental assent to these facts. Even the demons know who God is and know the facts about Jesus life and saving works, for James states, “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!” (James 2:19). But the demons will not place their faith and trust in Christ. Knowledge certainly does not mean that people are saved.

    In conclusion, saving faith involves knowledge, approval and personal trust.. We must have some knowledge of who Christ is and what he has done to redeem us, for “How can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?” (Rom. 10:14). Also, saving faith involves approval (mental assent) or the volitional agreement of our hearts and minds that the facts are true because the apostle Paul admonishes us that there are many ”…who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things (see list in verse 29 in the same context: unrighteousness, sexual immorality, etc.) are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32, emphasis added). Thirdly, saving faith involves personal trust, for there are many today who, like King Agrippa, know and approve of the Jewish scriptures (the Old Testament) ; indeed, the entire Bible, but are “almost persuaded” to become a Christian (see Acts 26:28). In other words, faith that saves is a total commitment of the whole person (intellect, emotions and will) to Christ--a gaze or repose of the soul that turns away from sin and self , and receives and rests upon Christ alone for salvation (see Isaiah 45:22; John 1:12-13). Faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin. We turn away from sin (repent) in faith to Jesus Christ. Saving faith is a repentant faith. As Wayne Gurdem, Systematic Theology expresses it so poignantly: “True saving faith in New Testament terms is more than mere intellectual assent to facts; it must include a heartfelt coming to Christ in personal dependence on him for salvation, combined with a heartfelt repentance from sin.” Thanks for your time and I hope I have shed some light on this subject as to the origin, nature of grace and saving faith.

11. Ray says on Dec 14, 2008 @ 09:06 PM:

    Isaac, just this comment. I'm sure you have plently to say about my long comment above. We all bring our presuppositions to the Bible. My presupposition (or presumption, as you call it) is that the Bible is God's inspired,inerrant, and authoritative Word. If that anyway stands in the way of (or hinders) my understamding of scripture in dependance upon the Holy Spirit and, of course, sound biblical interpretation, I would be very interested to know what presuppositions (call them "presumptions") you bring to the Bible that somehow gives more credibility to your understanding and interpretation?

    Also, with all due respect to Calvinists, I have never ever heard a Calvinist (and I graduated from a Reform Seminary) say Calvinism=the Gospel. I have heard many say things about Calvinism that clearly shows they have not done their homework and do not understand The Doctrines of Grace. We both know the saving Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is stated clearly in 1 Corithians 15. Need I state it here? As for the systematic doctrines of Calvinism, it is simply what the early Reformers, the great missionary and apostle Paul and the Lord Christ Himself believed. And history records among the long list of Calvinists who believed "The Doctrines of Grace, such great preachers as John Bunyan, who gave us "The Pilgrim's Progress"; George Whitefield, who, along with John Wesley (Methodist), brought revival that many credit for saving England from a bloody revolution like that in France; John Owen; John Calvin, D. Martin Lloyd Jones, whose ministry of Westminister Chapel lasted for 30 years; Charles Spurgeon whose sermons and writings have been published and read worldwide in many languages,and Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tennent, and Asahel Nettleton of the First and Second Great Awakening in the New England States, to name just a few. A study of the sermons and style of preaching of these great men (and other worthy expositors of the old Gospel) reveals that their evangelistic preaching "holds forth the Saviour and summons sinners to him with a fulness, warmth, intensity and moving force unmatched in Protestant pulpit literature."(J.I. Packer). "The New York Times" called Asahel Nettleton "one of the most extraordinary preachers of the gospel with whom God has ever blessed this country" (Thornbury, p.226, cited in "Remains of the late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D.). You can read about this great man of God in the book "God Sent revival" by J.F. Thornbury: Evangelical Press, P.O. Box 2453, Grand Rapids, Mich. 49501, USA. I can assure you that you will not put it down until you have read the whole book.

    With all due respect for my Catholic friends, I disagree with you that their Bible interpretation is strong in some areas. I am not alone. Many who came out of Catholism after their conversion to Christ would also disagree with you. Yes, we certainly must be humble in our approach, but we must also be honest when it comes to sharing scripture (Rom. 10:17) because both Catholism or Protestantism (re: Calvinism, Dispensational, Arminian)cannot be right (at least according to the law of contradiction), particularly when it comes to the grave matter of how we can stand justified before a Holy and Righteous God. If I did not believe sthis, I would not spend time responding to the comments on this blog. Take care and God bless.

12. David Castlen says on Dec 15, 2008 @ 08:45 AM:

    Issac:
    I read the first part of your reply to me slowy again. I would like to reply. You said,
    "Protestants and Catholics both could bring verse after verse to bare on their position and this is what has been done for centuries now. For instance, about your distinction between Satisfication and Necessity you said: "Just ask the rich young man who asked Jesus what must I do to be saved." And if I took that story on face value it appears you have a good point. But then I could simply take you to one of the most famous verses in Scripture to show the contrary point, John 3:16. I could argue that if language means anything Jesus said that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Therefore if someone believes he will not perish. Jesus made no qualifications here. He didn't say how long the the person is supposed to belive, or how evidenct his belief is he simply said if someone believes he will never perish. However, I would not do this because it is obvious that based on one's theological position this verse may be interpreted in different ways. "
    I think you misunderstand my position. When I made reference to two verses, I way making the point that these verses appear to be saying that we are saved by works. I was also implying it is obviously that (throughout) the Holy Scriptures we are saved by Faith (as well). I find no where in the Scritures that we are saved by something alone; so my conclusion is there is no implied 'faith alone' or 'works alone.' And it is not possible to establish 'faith alone' when one reads in a numerous versus that works are a must; e.g., the (is it a parable?) of the goats and the sheep. No where in there does The Judge say whoever believed in me go....... but many other places in the bible it does say belief is imperative...The point: Faith is necessary; works (of Charity) are necessary; conclusion Faith and Works (of Charity) are satisfactory.

13. Mike says on Dec 15, 2008 @ 09:01 AM:

    All evangelicals, and most protestants, whether calvinist or arminian, assume that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and supports an "orthodox" understanding of Christianity. It is this that unites us and makes it possible to have "in-house" debates. We are arguing about the same thing, we just disagree on how to reach our conclusion. It is like two builders both agreeing that a house should be built on a sound foundation, but then arguing about what is the best framing material to use, wood, or aluminum.

    The problem when discussing Scripture with the Catholic Church is that it does not share these assumptions. Yes, the Church will agree that Scripture is infalible and that an orthodox understanding of Scripture is correct, but only as far as it is confirmed by "tradition." It is this third element that throws a spanner into the works, and has us talking at cross purposes. Perhaps, the way to solve it is for Catholics to quote the tradition that they are introducing into the debate and then we can check and challenge the source.

    Either way, by arguing about Calvinism we are off topic and need to get back to addressing the issue of the Pope's statements on justification. It is quite a story and the statements need to be studied to ensure that we can take them at face value. If his statements can be taken at face value, then perhaps we have our first protestant pope!

    But, listening to it again, I did wonder how much "charity" do I need to prove that my justification by faith is valid? While I have no problem saying that a justified person is a changed person, it is not the change that justifies him, but God, through faith. This change, however, is regeneration, not justification, and sanctification is the way that God enables his new born child to grow (now that is a mystery!). The pope seems to be making "charity" a condition of justification. That is like saying that we death-row prisoners have been pardoned by the governor on the basis of his mercy and our "good behavior" in prison. To me, it just does not sound very bibical. What do you think?

14. Ray says on Dec 15, 2008 @ 10:43 AM:

    Excellent insight and observation, Mike, and true to scripture. As I have said above,"Dare we think for one moment that there is some virtue (i.e. Charity) in our faith in and of ourselves that merits our justification or standing before God.? It is Christ, the sinless Lamb of God (not our faith per se) Who alone justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5; 5:9). Faith is simply a term for our spiritual union with Christ. In short, the Christian stands justified (declared righteous) before God because he is in Christ, Who alone justifies the ungodly.

    David stated "he finds nothing in scripture that says we are justified by faith alone." You are mistaken, David. Yes, the words "faith alone" are not specificially used, no more than the word "trinity" is used, but it is clearly implied and inferred in many many biblical texts, just as the trinity is implied and inferred in many texts. For example,in Acts 6:31 when the Phillipian jailer asked Paul and Silas: What must I do to be saved? they replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved and thy house. This is one of the most definitive statements regarding what God requires for a man to be saved? Paul and Silas,speaking under the inspiration and authority of the Holy Spirit of God would not have said explicitly just believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, if salvation was by faith plus works or works alone. They would not under inspiration of the Holy Spirit deliberately deceive the jailer as to as to how he could be saved. Of course, they sdded "and thy house", meaning that if the members of your household will believe, they also would be saved, since what the jailor had to do to be saved would be the same for his family members.
    That is why the Bible commonly refers to those who become Christians as "believers" in numerous texts. John 3:16, which was mentioned previously is another verse that teaches one is saved through faith alone : "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:36 is another verse: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life [present tense, now]: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." 2 Thessalonians 2:13: "But we are bound always to give thanks...because God had from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.Note, God does not outline any works here as the cause or partial cause of the sinner's salvation, but simply the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying those whom God has chosen "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth", namely the gospel truth of salvation in Jesus Christ. Of course, there is the classical passage in Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." The sole author of inspiration and authority, God, the Holy Spirit, could not have said it more plainly and explicitly--and please do not bring the tradition of the church as the interpreter into this discussion; otherwise, as Mike said, we will simply "be talking at cross purposes." Right now I am concerned with what is stated in in scripture as plain as the nose on you face.

    Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary (1972-77), so well expressed this truth in his insightful commentary on Ephesians 2:8-9: "But when we say that "or by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves..('and that' is a reference to the entire clause that precedes it, not specifically 'faith', we're talking about the whole thing--this 'by grace through faith' salvation--and if it is not of ourselves ('by grace through faith' salvation)--the faith is not of ourselves, and the grace is not of ourselves,---"it is the gift of God." I could list many other passages (i.e. Rom. 3:28; John 1:12-13; Acts 26:18; Acts 13:48; Romans 4:3; Rom. 10:9-10; Genesis 15:6, etc.) but what I have said is sufficient to show that "salvation by grace [alone] through faith [alone] in Christ [alone] is undeniably taught in scripture--which is what the early Reformers wholeheartedly believed and proclaimed.

15. Ray says on Dec 15, 2008 @ 11:06 AM:

    P.S. In my previous comment, I was not implying that faith and charity are the same (they are not and are carefully distinguished in scripture) but simply that it is Christ Who justifies the sinner (not our faith per se) through faith (in His redemptive work) and no work of ours or virtue(i.e charity) is needed to validate that justification.
    .

16. Ray says on Dec 17, 2008 @ 01:14 PM:

    Faith, David, is the fruit, evidence or eeffect of saving faith, as many scriptures attest. That is what James meant, when he said "...faith without works is dead, being alone" (James 2:17) and "faith without works is dead (James 2:20).

    In James 2:14 he says: What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works" Can faith save him?" And, the answer, of course, is a resounding "NO" because in this verse and context, he is reinforcing the same truth he has already stated twice in James 2:14 and 17; namely, that "faith without works is dead, being alone" "(or "faith without works is dead. In other words,if one says he has saving faith, but does not have works as the evidence, fruit or effect of that faith, then he is, in truth, deceiving himeslf and others, because such a faith is dead (or dead, being alone).

    An empty faith, that is, a faith that does not produce or manifest itself in good works is a dead faith. I know this interpretation is biblical or correct because, as a result or consequence of what he has already stated in verses 14, and 17, he now adds: "But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18). Note the presuppositional phrase "by my works." ('I will show you my faith by my works')

    Now, keeping in mind the point that he has already emphasized 3 times already in the context of chapter 2 concerning the nature of faith; namely, "faith without works is dead, being alone (verse 17), "..faith without works is dead' (verse 20) and "Show me your faith without your works, "and I will show you my faith by my works" (verse 18) plus the fact that scripture never contradicts itself, he now adds in verse 21: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?" (verse 21). Now, before you begin to interpret this verse (v. 21), keep in mind what he has already clearly said in verses 14, 17, and 20 (we must read what comes before as well as after verse 21).He now adds in verse 22 by way of clarifying the meaning of verse 21: "Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect." Note,carefully the words "faith was made perfect". Further, so that no one could possibly mistake what he is saying, he reiterates what Moses and the aspostle Paul has already clearly stated concerning Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3; namely, "And the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness' (verse 23).

    So you see,after being very consistent throughout with what scripture has previously stated in verses 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 of James, all of which lead him to conclude and reinforce what Moses and Paul has previously taught under inspiration of the Spirit of God; namely, that Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Rom. 4:3), he now adds "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" (verse 24) and qualifies it (again, so as to be clear and consistent)with what he has already said:, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (Verse 26).

    Now, we know that verse 26 is conveying the same meaning as verses 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24) because he has retained the consistency and interpretation throughout in agreement with what Moses and the apostle Paul has already taught clearly in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3; namely, that "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (verse 23). Why does it say Abraham's belief (or faith) was accounted to him for righteousness? Because Abraham's belief or faith was not an empty, dead faith, but rather saving faith that is characterized by obedience and good works as the evidence or fruit of that faith.

    Which is why I said earlier that in the same context ("faith without works is dead") of chapter 2, in verses 14 to 24, James is discussing the nature of saving faith and re-emphasizing the crucial point already stated in James 2:14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24;namely, faith without works is dead (or dead, being alone)--and this does not contradict what Moses said in Genesis 15:6 and the apostle Paul says concerning justification by faith apart from works in Romabs 3:20, 21, 24, 31, Romans 4:2, 16; Ephesians 2:8-10 and many other verses (Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace..." What is of faith?"(Romans 4:16). Answer: the promise God made to Abraham and his descendents concerning the righteousness that comes through faith alone in Jesus Christ in verse 13 of that same chapter and context).

    In short, what he is carefully stressing in verse 23 of James 2 is in fulfillment of scripture (in both the Old and New Testament): "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (James 2:23).

    In conclusion, Paul was talking about the requirements for salvation ("By grace through faith in Christ apart from works") whereas James is dealing with the nature of saving faith, which is not a dead or empty faith but will always manifest or evidence itself in good works. In other words, good works is the fruit, evidence or result of salvation, but not the cause of it.

17. Ray says on Dec 17, 2008 @ 04:52 PM:

    Ray says on Dec 17, 2008 @ 01:14 PM:

    Works, David, is the fruit, evidence or eeffect of saving faith, as many scriptures attest. That is what James meant, when he said "...faith without works is dead, being alone" (James 2:17) and "faith without works is dead (James 2:20).

    In James 2:14 he says: What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works" Can faith save him?" And, the answer, of course, is a resounding "NO" because in this verse and context, he is reinforcing the same truth conveyed in James 2:14 and 17; namely, that "faith without works is dead, being alone" "(or "faith without works is dead). In other words,if one says he has saving faith, but does not have works as the evidence, fruit or effect of that faith, then he is, in truth, deceiving himeslf and others, because such a faith is dead (or dead, being alone).

    An empty faith, that is, a faith that does not produce or manifest itself in good works is a dead faith. I know this interpretation is biblical or correct because, as a result or consequence of what he has already stated in verses 14, and 17, he now adds: "But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18). Note the prepositional phrase "by my works." ('I will show you my faith by my works')

    Now, keeping in mind the point that he has already emphasized three times already in the context of chapter 2 concerning the nature of faith; namely, "faith without works is dead, being alone (verse 17), "..faith without works is dead' (verse 20) and "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (verse 18) plus the fact that scripture never contradicts itself, he now adds in verse 21: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?" (verse 21). Now, before you begin to interpret this verse (v. 21), keep in mind what he has already clearly said in verses 14, 17, and 20 (we must read what comes before as well as after verse 21). He now adds in verse 22 by way of clarifying the meaning of verse 21: "Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect." Note,carefully the words "faith was made perfect". Further, so that no one could possibly mistake what he is saying, he reiterates what Moses and the aspostle Paul has already clearly stated concerning Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3; namely, "And the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness' (verse 23).

    So you see,after being very consistent throughout with what scripture has previously stated in verses 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 of James, all of which lead him to conclude and reinforce what Moses and Paul has previously taught under inspiration of the Spirit of God; namely, that Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Rom. 4:3), he now adds "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" (verse 24) and qualifies it (again, so as to be clear and consistent)with what he has already said:, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (Verse 26).

    Now, we know that verse 26: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" is conveying the same meaning as verses 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 because works in this verse is used in the sense as the fruit,evidence, or result of saving faith. In other words, is he has retained the consistency and interpretation of scripture throughout James 2 in agreement with what Moses and the apostle Paul has already taught clearly in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3; namely, that "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (verse 23).

    Why does it say Abraham's belief (or faith) was accounted to him for righteousness? Because Abraham's belief or faith was not an empty, dead faith, but rather saving faith that is characterized by obedience and good works as the evidence or fruit of that faith.

    Which is why I said earlier that in the same context ("faith without works is dead") of chapter 2, in verses 14 to 24, James is discussing the nature of saving faith and re-emphasizing the crucial point already stated in James 2:14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24; namely, faith without works is dead (or dead, being alone)--and this does not contradict what Moses said in Genesis 15:6 and the apostle Paul says concerning justification by faith apart from works in Romabs 3:20, 21, 24, 31, Romans 4:2, 16; Ephesians 2:8-10 and many other verses (Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace..." (Romans 4:16). What is of faith?" Answer: the promise God made to Abraham and his descendents concerning the righteousness that comes through faith alone in Jesus Christ in verse 13 of that same chapter and context).

    In short, what he is carefully stressing in verse 23 of James 2 is in fulfillment of the preceding verses 14 to 22 and Genesis 15:6, as well as what Paul has said in Romans 3:21-24, Romans 4:2, 16; Ephesians 2:8-10 and many other biblical text;in other words,in fulfillment of both Old and New Testament: "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (James 2:23).

    In conclusion, Paul was talking about the requirements for salvation ("By grace through faith in Christ apart from works") whereas James is dealing with the nature of saving faith, which is not a dead or empty faith but will always manifest or evidence itself in good works. In other words, good works is the fruit, evidence or result of salvation, but not the cause of it.

    
    

    
    ReasonableFaith.org

18. David Castlen says on Dec 19, 2008 @ 09:45 AM:

    To all in this discussion:
    Why have I not heard Iranius' (sorry spelling) 'Against Heresy' quoted regarding the distintion between The Natural Law (Ten Commandments) and the other 603 laws given as a punishment (see EX 20)? My understanding is that the law referred in most of Galations and Romans is the 603 laws and not the Natural Law.

19. Ray says on Dec 19, 2008 @ 07:16 PM:

    In Exodus 20:1-17 God gives Moses the Ten Commandments (the Moral Law), which includes "Thou shall not commit adultery" (verse 14) and "Thou shall not covet,,," (verse 17.) In context of Romans Paul is most definitely talking about the Moral Law (Ten Commandments) and not the 603 laws, consisting of the dietary,ceremonial and civil laws, because in Romans 7 the apostle Paul discusses the law as it relates to adultery (verse 3) and coveting (in v.7). He says: "For I had not known lust (i.e. intense desire for something as sexual desire), except the law had said, THOU SHALL NOT COVET." In Romans 2 he talks about those Gentiles who, although they have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law" (v. 14);that is to say, they show "the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness..." (v. 15)--what some theologians call the law of conscience. What law" Ans. the Ten Commandments. How do I know? Having admonished those who are only hearers of the law, but not doers of the law (v. 13), he warns those instructors of the law[Jews] who boast in the law (v. 17-21) that they who preach and teach that one should "not steal" (v.21),"not commit adultery" (v. 22),"abhor idols (remember, the second great commandment in verse 4 is "You shall not make for yourself any carved image or idol. You shall not bow down to them nor serve them")should make sure that they are not stealing, commiting adultery,or worshipping idols; in other words, that they are obeying The Ten Commandments themselves.

    In Galatians Paul is also referring to the Ten Commandments or Moral Law because he contrasts the children of the promise who have been redeemed from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13) with those are still under the curse of the law, who are guilty of the works of the flesh (Gal. 3:10) and then, in chapter 5, after stating "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; "Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself" (v. 14) contrasts the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith..etc. with the works (or fruit) of the flesh: idolatry, fornication (v.19),witchcraft, wrath, seditions, heresies (v. 20) envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings (21, clearly sins of the heart and flesh against the Moral Law of God (the Ten Commandments).

20. Isaac says on Dec 20, 2008 @ 04:11 PM:

    Mike and Ray,

    I want to say that I do agree with your position of Sola Sciptura but what exactly is meant by it? Are we to say that we are free from all tradition? Or are we to be arrogant enough to believe that our tradition holds the only true interpretation. There are some problems with the concept of Sola Scriptura:

    1) The statement itself is not entirely biblical and in fact comes from Martin Luther. So by using it you are quoting tradition and not Scripture. This isn't to say that you can't make a Scriptural argument for it. Clearly Jesus and the apostles had a high view of Scripture and quoted it as truth and God's Word. And I'm sure you could give some proof texts to back it up as well (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet. 2:21 etc.) but this wouldn't end the issue because Catholics have texts that talk about perserving the traditions that were passed down and their systematic theology is not only biblically based but also histroically based. In other words they see theology not as interpretation of the mere words of Scripture but also in the church's understanding and historic development of doctrine. You would do the same when you acknowledge the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union. These were doctrines not plain in Scripture but wrestled over and accepted by the universal church.

    2) Where did the canon originate? This is truly one of the most difficult questions for Protestants. If we say the Bible is our only authority then we must ask where did it come from? What we see is that the universal church discerned the canon of Scripture. So now we find we are in a circular dilemma. How can tradition tell us what Scripture is and yet Scripture tell us what tradition is? It would seem more legit to say that both feed each other and inform and cast light on one another. You would actually say the same when you quote certain phrases from the Reformed tradition like sola fe or sola scriptura. The truth is the canon, the 66 books we hold dear, was discerned to be Scripture by the universal church.

    3) There is also one last problem. The problem of not being free from tradition yourselves. The reformed or protestant traditon is just that, tradition. Many of the ideas and interpretations are mere extentsions and expansions of Calvin and Luther's thoughts. In this way Protestants are in the same camp as Catholics. It is not enough for Scripture to speak for itself but the interpretation must line up with the interpretation of whatever Reformer is held in the most esteem by that certain denomination. If your a Calvinist then it would be Calvin, some of Luther, Edwards, Whitefield, Lloyd-Jones and some others. You would use these men to illuminate your understanding of Scripture. And this is fine. But the Catholics are doing the same they just are using different men and a much older tradition.

    If you ask me what I would say is that the history of the Church is much more complicated then either Protestants or Catholics want to admit. The Church is now nearly 2000 years old. This means it has had plenty of time for growth and development and also plenty of time for folly and error. Yet God has still shined his light and continued to save millions even through our own divisions and in-house fights. The church has suceeded in many ways and has failed in many ways. But one thing is clear God has seen fit to use both Catholics and Protestants despite their own failures and misgivings. Oh the depths and height of the love and wisdom of God!

21. Anonymous says on Dec 21, 2008 @ 12:59 PM:

    No Isaac, we are not free from tradition, but tradition must be faithful and true to scripture--which is why we maintain Sola Scriptura--that scripture by itself is the source of all authority and practice. Church councils (i.e Council of Nicea (325 AD, Council of Trent, etc.) did not eastablish the authority and inspiration of scripture, but merely confirmed the authority and inspiration of the various books already in crculation hundreds of years before these councils convened. They books were included in the canon, therefore, by virtue of their own established and recognized authority, not by virtue of the authority and discretion of any church council.
    Christians do not esteem the principles of the Reformation as more important than the Bible itself. Indeed, it can be historically shown that the principles the reformers cherished (Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) Sola Fidea (Faith alone), Sola Gracia (grace alone) were derived from the Bible and faithful to the teaching of scripture, which is why protestants hold them so dear. One of the distinctives of the evangelical protestant faith is that we do rely upon any priest,any minister, church tradition, or church to interpret scripture for us, but as believers who have received Christ as Lord and Saviour, we already are members of Christ`s body--His church and, according to scripture (1 Peter 2:9) share in a common priesthood priesthood of all believers. Therefore, we have the authoritity, duty and responsibility to interpret scripture for ourselves, just as the early believers at Berea did (see Acts 17:11). These Berean Christians did not simply take any person`s interpretation as authoritative, but ``searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. It is dangerous to put `your faith in someone else`s interpretation. This is how cults got started in the first place and why some people have blindly and tragically followed their leader`s interpretation of scripture and instruction to their own demise and destruction. Which is why Christians during the Reformation were willing to seal that conviction (the individual liberty and right to read and interpret scripture) with their own blood in the face of persecution. That, of course, does not rule out the need for leaders (pastors, ministers) trained in theology, biblical interpretation (Hermeneutics) and knowledge of the ancient languages of the Old and New testament (i.e Hebrew, Greek, etc.), but it our individual duty and responsibility to study scripture for ourselves and see that what our ministers and pastors are teaching is faithful to scripture.

    It is not the case, therefore, that interpretation of scripture must line up with the Reformers, as you suggested, but rather that our interpretation be faithful and true to scripture. yes, God has used people from various denominations, including Catholic, for His own glory and purpose--and will continue to do so.

22. Anonymous says on Dec 21, 2008 @ 01:03 PM:

    orrection: it should read "we do not rely upon any pries, minister, tradition, etc. for interpretation of scripture. Thank you.

23. Isaac says on Dec 22, 2008 @ 02:14 AM:

    Anonymous,

    Thank you for your response and I agree with the just of it but I am still unconvinced that tradition is not very often very much at work in Protestant interpretation of Scripture. And again, this isn't necessarily bad it's just a truth. It's what happens when you're part of an historical context. You're a Protestant born centuries after the Reformation after the Protestants have had time to formulate basic doctrinal systems. You see the Bible to be teaching Sola Fe because you are already approaching it from a Protestant expectation. But a good Catholic will look at the same verses and passages you're looking at and not believe the Bible is teaching Sola Fe. And again, as for Sola Scriptura it is not easy to find the articulation of this doctrine in Scripture though I believe the case can be made.

    I am glad for your zeal for the Scriptures and Christ but I think we need to be careful in assuming that our position is the default position and assuming that our reading of Scripture is the self-evident one. The majority of Christendom is not Protestant and they all have a high regard for Scripture. In fact the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church would claim that it is their tradition that has preserved, defended, and represented that Scritpure to most of the world throughout most of chruch history. Either the Scripture was hidden from most of the world through most of church history or they have some point to be made.

    I agree with Sola Scriptura and Sola Fe but probably in a way quite different from you. I believe it because it is what the Scriptures seem to teach but also because of the godly men before me that have held it. I am not an island to myself nor do I have some special bent on Scripture. I am part of an historical movement, a movement that God has used to reveal himself just as he has used the Scriptures. I also affirm the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Personhood of the Spirit. But not just because the Scriptures teach it but because the universal church as discerned it to be the proper expression of Holy Scripture as well. To distance ourselves from tradition to me is not humble. Yes we need to be discerning and if something clearly is not in Scripture and is an extrapolation of man than we must reject it. But I have found that every church and every tradtion has some of these traditions that are not found in Scripture.

    And I think there are many problems with Sola Scriptura for I believe it has often been abused. People privately interpret it (which has caused just as many cults as has people blindly following one man's interpretation), has caused many heresies, and has caused some confusion and disputes in many churches. In my opinion the Protestant tradition has fallen in a place where it may itself need to either rethink it's historic place or possibly reform itself to line up more with Christianity's roots. You don't see much personal interpretation back in early Christianity. What you see are people wanting to learn from the teachers. Many of the early Christians couldn't even read. It seems back then the church affirmed the truth and interpretation as a community and this continued on into the councils. That is why Paul constanlty tells Timothy to ordain men who can teach and preach the word. This was to be what made them distinct from others. Just some thoughts. I've been a Catholic and I've been a Protestant so I know fairly well the issues. Currently I would line up more with Protestants but am dissapointed. Catholics seem to have corrupted Scripture and Prtoestants to have corrupted the traditions of the universal church. As I said before it's amazing how mighty God is still moving. Thanks for the conversation.

24. Ray says on Dec 22, 2008 @ 03:54 PM:

    I do not distance myself from tradition, Isaac, but, like most protestants, I place scripture in its proper place in relation to scripture, not equal to scriptural authority and not above scriptural authority.Where abuses have occurred in the past, especially prior to the reformation, as history attests, is when state religion becomes the law of the land (as we have seen in England and Spain) and compelled dissenters from other religions to comply with its established traditions, by force if necessary (i.e the bloodshed and tyranny of the bloody inquisition in Spain and the persecution of those outside the state Shurch of England. Yes, many did not know how to read the scriptures for themselves at this time and England and Spain were the worst for it. That is why the Pilgrims and others who could read left England for religious freedom in the American colonies, later to become the United States. The Reformation restored the Gospel that had been corrupted and lost for hundreds of years and, beginning with men like Luther, Whycliffe and Tyndale translated the scriptures into the languages of the common people, so that no individual need suffer from the abuse of ignornance and exploitation by any church hierarchy by way of tradition enforced by the state. All true believers are members of Christ body--His Church (1 Corinthians 12:13) through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. This "universal church" comprises all true believers from every visible denomination--not necessarily one visible religious affiliation on earth. Contrary to what you stated, history clearly shows that it was state churches (i.e the Catholic and Church of England) that were most corrupted by their traditions and councils, and it is they that need to rethink their tradition (which I hope that is what Pope Benedict is attempting to do to some extent) because, Isaac, when it comes to such an important matter as how one is justified in the sight of a Holy and Righteous God, we cannot afford to be wrong. God bless and have a blessed and joyous Christmasd.

25. Ray says on Dec 22, 2008 @ 10:01 PM:

    Another thing, Issac, one's private interpretation of scripture is not what causes cults to develop and gain a following. For example, my private interpretation of scripture cannot bind your conscience. Rather, men and women become victims of cults when they are very poorly grounded in their understanding of scripture and they willingly allow some charismatic leader's private interpretation of scripture to to bind their conscience.

    The liberty to privately interpret acripture does not mean we are an island unto ourselves, or that we have arrived. As believers, we are all members of Christ's body--His Church and, have certain gifts and talents to contribute to the body, both individually and corporately. No one member is any more important than another, but each member is essential to the proper functioning of the body (Christ's church) as a whole, just as scripture clearly explains in 1 Corinthians 12:20-21, 26:"But now are they many members,yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee, nor again the hand to the feet, I have no need of thee.And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or if one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it."

    Nor does it rule out the need for pastors and teachers who are theologically trained and knowledgeable of the ancient languages (i.e Hebrew, Greek)to shepherd the flock or congregation; however, it is not their theological training and ordination by some ecclesiastical authority that qualifies them to be pastors and teachers, but rather their spiritual qualifications; namely, the witness of the indwelling and working of the Holy Spirit, in both word and deed, in a spiritually transformed life through personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. No amount of seminary and academic training can substitute for the indwelling Presence and working of the Holy Spirit inwardly in our character, and outwardly in our standing and walk before God,because without the Spirit of God one cannot understand the things of God or spiritual truth (1 Corinthians 2:12-14)revealed in scripture, and it will soon become evident to those [believers]who he/she is endeavouring to teach and guide. I remember following my own life-transforming conversion to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, after returning home from a teaching position in an isolated region of Labrador,I went to a Bible study in the United Church (my parents denomination). It soon became evident that the minister leading the group was not converted because he said he didn't believe anyone was actually lost or saved, and everytime I quoted or related scripture (i.e."For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" Matthew 18:11 and "But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world [Satan] had blinded the minds of them which believe not.." (2 Cor. 4:3-4), he simply replied "We in the United Church take a more liberal view." I finally got frustrated with his "liberal pickle" opinion everytime I mentioned scripture and said, "With all respect, Rev. it does not matter what your opinion or my opinion of scripture is, but rather what is God's opinion of scripture, as plainly stated in His Word." It was obvious to anyone that he did not believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant and authorative Word of God, but merely contained the Word of God--which is just another way of saying you can pick and choose which portions of scripture you want to believe and those [other uncomfortable, difficult parts] you do not want to believe.

    When the Spirit of God is truly present in the lives of believers there will be harmony and agreement when it comes to spiritual truth, especially when it comes to the essentials or cardinal tenets of the Christian faith. That does not mean that there will not be different interpretations in difficult areas of divine revelation (i.e prophesy or eschatology), or books involving a great deal of symbolism (i.e Book of Revelation). There will be, but not when it comes to the essentials of the Christian faith revealed supremely in God's Word and expressed in biblical creeds and traditions (and note I said "biblical" creeds and "traditions")by godly men and women and throughout the centuries.
    
    The pastor or minister is not to lord his interpretation of scripture over the congregation. He is there first and foremost as a servant to guide and shepherd the flock. There has to be checks and balances in interpretation and the Holy Spirit of God provides such through the free and biblical exercise of the believer's understanding of scripture. As long as that pastor is faithful to scripture (especially essential Christian doctrine) the members have a duty and responsibility to receive and obey such teaching, but not because that pastor has any power to bind the conscience of fellow believers (he clearly does not). Rather, they should receive and obey such teaching because it is faithful to the Word of God, which alone has the power to bind the conscience of its hearers and followers.

    Sola Scriptura suffers abuse, as history has shown, when men attempt to use their own private interpretation of scripture to bind the conscience of heir followers (this is how cults get started and abuse others)--and this is a much different scenario than what the Bible teaches (and Christians practice) regarding the biblical teaching of the right and freedom of the believer to interpret scripture privately for himself.

26. Mike says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 08:46 AM:

    I am really enjoying this discussion and the irenic spirit in which it is undertaken. I think if Christians in general were more determined to hammer out issues like this, we could solve many of the problems that divide us.

    
    Having said that, I am still not sure what the pope is saying. Is he agreeing with Luther that justification is by faith alone, or is he agreeing with Trent that justification is by a combination of faith and works? As you point out Ray, this is the issue – our eternity depends upon it.

    
    For my own part, when reading Scripture, whether the particular phrase “faith alone” is in the Bible is not the issue. The Bible does present salvation by grace in such a way that grace and works are considered opposites, there can be no combination of the two (Romans 11:6). No matter what our traditions may say, I cannot imagine how any one of them can nullify this contrast and still do justice to the grammar.

    
    It seems to me that traditional interpretations of Scripture are only appealed to in order to qualify clear grammatical contrasts like this in the Bible. The odd thing is that the traditional source is never presented; it, therefore, simply becomes an appeal to authority, and nothing more. Surely, it is important to know which traditional interpretation is challenging the grammar and why. It would also be helpful to know who said it, and the time he stated it. How else can we determine how authoritative it really is?

    
    We see how important this principle is from our current discussion, we cannot even figure out what the pope is saying, and he is contemporary with us, how can we work out what a traditional source from hundreds of years ago means without the ability to cross examine? Better, I think, to let Paul’s grammar determine our interpretation, and then use authorities that assist us in understanding the grammar. If Luther, or the pope, can prove there position grammatically then let us go with them. The issue is really not what either of them says; it is, ultimately, what the apostles and Christ himself said.

    
    Back to the issue, is the pope agreeing with Luther, or is there a hidden qualification in his statements?

27. David Castlen says on Jan 5, 2009 @ 08:03 AM:

    This is from a Newletter of John Martignoni his webb sight is www.biblechristiansociety.com
    Perhaps it will shead a light on this discussion and resolve some concerns.
    In the last few weeks I received a number of emails from readers of this newsletter asking about one of Dr. Joe Mizzi’s recent anti-catholic e-newsletters, in which he comments on what Pope Benedict said in one of his November audiences. Several of those emails had a sense of the writer being very agitated or disturbed by what Dr. Mizzi said in this particular newsletter, as if Joe was actually making sense to them and they needed to be re-assured that he was wrong…that somehow, somewhere, he was wrong.

    First of all, let me say this: if you are currently receiving Dr. Joe Mizzi’s e-newsletters, and they upset you, then cancel your subscription! Just click on the “Unsubscribe” button at the bottom of his newsletter and be done with it!

    Next, for the benefit of those who emailed me, and hopefully as a benefit to all the subscribers to this newsletter, I will respond to this particular e-newsletter of Dr. Mizzi’s. But, after this, please do not send me any more of his garbage.

    Dr. Mizzi, being a medical doctor, is obviously a very smart man. But, unfortunately, when it comes to theology, to the Bible, and to the teachings of the Catholic Church, Joe, like so many others, does what I like to describe as, “gets stupid in a hurry.” Logic goes out the door. Sound reasoning goes out the door.

    When it comes to the Bible, Joe has his beliefs and he will twist the Bible any way necessary to make it fit his beliefs. When it comes to Catholic teaching, Joe will ignore what I, and many many other Catholics, have told him about our faith, and claim the Catholic Church teaches things that it doesn’t actually teach – because that is simply what he wants to believe – proof to the contrary be damned.

    So, I will respond to this e-newsletter of Joe Mizzi’s, but this will be the last time. So, again, I simply recommend that if you do not want trash coming into your inbox, please unsubscribe from Joe Mizzi’s newsletter at the first chance you get. And, even if he responds to what I say here, please don’t forward it to me, I will not respond to someone whose sincerity I doubt and whose motives I question.

    Okay, below is what Dr. Mizzi wrote with my comments mixed in between his.

    Challenge/Response/Strategy
    Joe Mizzi’s Newsletter:

    Pope Benedict and Justification:
    Pope Benedict said that Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone is correct if ‘faith is not opposed to charity.’ The Pope said this during a general audience in a speech on St Paul’s teaching on justification.

    I am glad that the Pope corrected the false idea popularized by some irresponsible apologists that ‘sola fide’ (faith alone) implies freedom from doing good and license to sin (‘antinomianism’). The Reformers vehemently resisted and opposed the antinomian heresy. The Protestant concept of justification by faith alone never excluded good works in the life of the believer. On the character of genuine faith, Luther wrote: ‘Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever.’

    My Comments: Sorry, but the Pope did not correct any false ideas by irresponsible apologists regarding sola fide. The Pope actually corrected the false ideas of many Sola Fide adherents that works, and love, have no role in our salvation. The error, the really critical error, that Joe Mizzi and most, if not all, Sola Fide adherents make, is this belief that faith without works really isn’t faith. They have to say this in an attempt to make their theology fit scripture. As Joe quotes Luther above, “Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever.” Problem is, for those who go by the Bible alone, the Bible nowhere says such a thing

    As those who are regular readers of this newsletter know, I have, time after time after time, shown that Scripture teach es us, as does the Catholic Church, that faith without works is still faith…it is just dead faith. Faith alone is still faith, but it is dead faith. How many times have I asked Sola Fide adherents, in past issues of this newsletter, to read James 2:26 – “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead,” – and then answer one simple question: Is the body without the spirit still a body…yes or no?

    I have yet to receive an answer. Why? Because they can’t answer that question without contradicting themselves. Think about it, this verse says that both body and spirit are necessary for life – physical life. Then it draws an analogy – faith is analogous to the body, works are analogous to the spirit. So, for the analogy to hold, both faith and works are necessary for life – spiritual life. Does this verse say that the body without the spirit really isn’t a body? No It says the b ody without the spirit is dead. So, again, for the analogy to hold, is faith without works not really faith? No It is still faith, but it is dead faith.

    So, when anyone claims, as Sola Fide adherents are forced to claim, that faith without works really isn’t faith – they are directly contradicting the very clear words of the Bible. Which is why no one has ever answered my question. Because all the bodies down at the morgue are still bodies – they just happen to be dead. Faith, without works, is still faith, but it is dead faith – it cannot save you. So, Sola Fide, faith alone – without works – cannot save you. Sola Fide – faith alone – is dead faith. Faith without works is not the equivalent of not having faith – as Martin Luther used to believe and as Joe Mizzi and his ilk still believe – it is the equivalent of having dead faith. (By the way, I said as Martin Luther used to believe because now he knows bette r.)

    Joe Mizzi: Moreover the Pope also said that faith means to trust in Christ. ‘Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ…’. In traditional Catholic theology, faith is defined as the assent of the intellect to divine truth. Protestants emphasized trust (‘fiducia’), in addition to knowledge and assent, as the essential element of saving faith. It is not enough to know God’s Word, or even to be convinced that it is factually true – to be saved, one must entrust himself to Christ, resting on him alone for salvation.

    My Comments: The Pope is not coming up with some “new” definition of faith as Joe seems to believe. If you read what the Pope said in context, he is basically saying that if you define “faith” as being faith accompanied by works, then the Catholic Church essentially has no problem saying that faith alone, by Go d’s grace alone, saves us. That’s why the Pope said, as Dr. Mizzi quoted above, “If faith is not opposed to charity.” In other words, if by “faith” you mean faith working through love (faith and works), as it says in Gal 5:6, then we’ve got no problem with that. If, however, you say that works done in love through faith play no role in our salvation – meaning you have set faith and charity in opposition to one another – then we do have a problem with that.

    Joe Mizzi: The Pope noted that the apostle Paul places at the center of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ.’ In other words, one cannot be saved by faith in Christ if he also attempts to be saved by ‘works of the law’. This is exactly what Protestants mean when we speak of ‘sola fi de’ – we are justified by trusting in Christ and not on account of our works.

    My Comments: In other words, one cannot be saved by Christ if he also attempts to be saved by the Old Testament rites and practices. Paul was saying to the Jews: the Old Covenant has been fulfilled in the New Covenant instituted by Christ. No need for circumcision, you now have baptism. No need for animal sacrifices, you now have the one perfect sacrifice. And so on. The distinction Paul makes is not one that puts faith and works – feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, etc. – in opposition to one another, it is a distinction that puts the Old Covenant practices and institutions – circumcision, the Passover meal, animal sacrifices, dietary restrictions, the Levitical priesthood, etc. – in opposition to the New Covenant practices and institutions – baptism and the other sacraments, the sacrifice of Christ as the true Lamb of God, essentially no dietary restrictions, the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek, etc.

    The phrase, “works of the law,” refers to the Old Testament rites and practices, not to works of love done by faith. Joe Mizzi is sorely mistaken in this.

    Joe Mizzi: By Faith and Works
    On one hand the Pope endorses Paul’s teaching of justification by faith, apart from works of the law; on the other, he insists that we can really be just in the eyes of God on account of our love for God and neighbor. That is justification by love, or, justification by human works, for how can we express love apart from doing good works?

    The Pope argues that faith unites us with Christ, enabling us to love God and others, and in so doing, we fulfill the law and become really righteous. He said that the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fu lfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity.’ He concluded his speech by saying that ‘transformed by his love, by love of God and neighbor, we can really be just in the eyes of God.’

    To be sure such works of love are not done by our natural abilities; we must have faith, we must be united with Christ to really love. But ultimately, it is on account of these personal works that we are justified by God, according to Catholicism.

    My Comments: This is where Dr. Mizzi shows himself, once again, to be either willfully ignorant of Catholic teaching, or to be an outright malicious liar. I have told him over and over again, that we are not justified by our works. In fact, in at least one of our previous exchanges, he stated that he knows the Catholic Church does not teach that we are justified by our works. Yet, he claims here Catholics believe just that. He is co ntradicting himself. Why does he do that? Again, it’s either out of willful ignorance, or because he is simply a liar and he is lying to try and sway the ignorant to his position and away from the truth.

    The Catholic Church teaches that one’s works are of absolutely no avail, unless one is already in a state of justification. Dr. Joe Mizzi, what about that can you not understand? How can you say that Catholicism teaches justification by works, when the Church clearly teaches that one must be in a state of grace…must be a member of the Body of Christ…must be already saved…must be already justified…for any personal works of theirs to have merit (in, through, and by Christ).

    So, to say that we believe we are justified by our personal works, when we teach that our personal works are of no use unless we are already justified, is the height of absurdity! If I’m not already in a state of justification, then my works don’t count for anything. They certainly do not justify me. If I have to already be in a state of justification before my works count for anything, then how can you say we believe works justify us? We’re already justified before we do a single work that counts for anything!

    Works do not justify us. God’s grace does that. However, if we do not respond to God’s grace, with faith and works, then we can indeed lose our justification. Faith and works help us to hold on to what God has already given us. If we lose our faith, or if we do not do the works that God has prepared for us – we do not do the will of God for our lives – then we can lose the gift of justification…the gift of salvation…that God has given us through Baptism.

    Joe Mizzi: Works of the Law
    How does the Pope resolve the contradiction between Paul’s teaching and Catholic doctrine? Didn’t Paul clearly state that ‘we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law’? (Romans 3:28).

    My Comments: There is no conflict between Paul’s teaching and actual Catholic doctrine. There is, however, conflict between Paul’s teaching and Joe Mizzi’s version of Catholic doctrine.

    Joe Mizzi: In effect the Pope says that Paul was only referring to the Torah, the first five books of Moses. The Torah included rituals and cultural observances, in addition to ethical and moral principles, which distinguished and guarded Israel from the false religions of the pagans. But since the coming of Christ, those observances are no longer necessary. Thus when Paul says that we are not justified by the works of the Law, he was really saying that we are not justified by the Law of Moses, but he does not exclude that we are justified by the works of love. That’s the Pope’s argument in a nu tshell.

    My Comments: That is not the Pope’s argument “in a nutshell.” That is Joe Mizzi’s erroneous interpretation of the Pope’s argument based on his blatantly prejudiced and erroneous assertions regarding Catholic doctrine. The Pope does not teach that we are “justified” by works of love. Again, as I said above, works of love are of absolutely no use unless one is already justified.

    Joe Mizzi: The Pope rightly points out that in his epistles Paul discusses the division between Jews and Gentiles, and that now all believers are united in Christ irrespective of the ethnic background. But that was not his only concern. Paul also addresses the universal human tendency to self–righteousness, that is, our attempts to gain favour with God on account of personal works and merits.

    We agree that when Paul spoke about the Law, he was thinking particular ly of the Torah, the Law of Moses, and not of the law in general. But that does not mean that we can dismiss his argument as irrelevant since we are no longer required to obey to Jewish ceremonies and rituals. The Torah did indeed include ceremonial and civil precepts, but it also included moral laws. Jesus summarized the Law of Moses as the supreme love for God and love for our neighbor, and said that ‘on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 22:37–40).

    What then, if the Mosaic Law – with its ceremonial, civil and moral laws – could not justify, how can we now become just in God’s eyes if we take away the ceremonial and focus on the law’s moral teaching, namely love? Can we obey the law perfectly?

    My Comments: Once again, Joe is arguing against a supposedly Catholic belief, but it is a Catholic belief of his own making – not one that the Catholic Church actually teaches or that Catholic actually believe. We cannot become “just in God’s eyes” simply by focusing on the Mosaic Law’s moral teaching. Nowhere does Pope Benedict say that…nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that. This is a straw man that Joe has invented from his own imagination.

    Joe Mizzi: The problem is not with the Law of Moses; Paul declares that ‘the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good’ (Romans 7:12). The problem is with us, sinners by nature, and even after regeneration, the remaining corruption prevents the most mature Christians from reaching moral perfection on this side of eternity. If the Jew could not be justified by the works of the perfect Law, no–one could be justified by the works of any law. After all did not the Gentiles, though ignorant of Moses, also have ‘the law written in their hearts’ (Romans 2:14)? Yet they too were un able to be justified by works.

    The Law of Moses served the purpose of keeping God’s covenant people, Israel, distinct from pagan idolatry, as the Pope said. But the moral aspects of the law, whether written on tablets of stone or on the human conscience, also served to expose our depravity, guilt and helplessness. ‘Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin’ (Romans 3:20).

    My Comments: No, the problem is not with the Law of Moses, the problem is with Dr. Joe Mizzi and his imaginary Catholic beliefs. By the way, Joe, where does the Bible say it is impossible for anyone to reach moral perfection “this side of eternity?” Does not the Bible say that all things are possible with God? Apparently you don’t believe that, do you? Because if you did, you wouldn’t throw out such unbiblical statements like that. Again, we do not believe that we can be justified by works, so Joe is arguing against a straw man of his own creation. As he has every other time we have debated.

    Joe Mizzi: By Faith, Not Works
    To the Torah. He presented the Patriarch Abraham as the primary witness to his doctrine. He wrote:

    “What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:1–5).

    In this context “works” could not refer exclusively to obedience of the Torah, for Abrah am lived many centuries before Moses. It is therefore wrong to force Paul’s concept of ‘works of the Law’ exclusively to the Law of Moses. Clearly Paul applies the same principle to works in general. Abraham could not boast before God because he was justified faith and not by works. The same applies to us all.

    Paul then gives an example from ordinary life – when a worker receives his payment at the end of the month, could it be considered as grace, a free gift, a favour? Certainly not The worker has every right for the money he earned by his labour.

    But justification is not based on the principle of merit. The very opposite is true. Justification is by grace, pure and underserved grace. Only he is counted as righteous by the divine Judge who ‘does not work’ but ‘believes’ God. That is grace

    My Comments: First of all, if you read Romans 4, you see that the conte xt in which Paul is speaking is one of circumcised vs. uncircumcised…in other words, Jew vs. Gentile. Circumcision, while existing before the Mosaic Law, was one of the works that identified one as a Jew. That along with adherence to the precepts of the Mosaic Law. Paul’s context was not one where works referred to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and so on. But, even if it was, Joe is still arguing against something that we don’t teach…that one can be justified by good works. We don’t teach it…we don’t believe it. If we believed that, then we would believe that an atheist is justified by his good works. But, we don’t. Yet, Joe Mizzi is arguing against it as if it was Catholic teaching.

    Abraham was justified, by God’s grace, through faith. Yet, if Abraham had disobeyed God after he was justified – if, for instance, he had said, “No,” when God told him to sacrifice Isaac, would he not ha ve lost his justification for disobeying the will of God? If Abraham had refused to circumcise himself and all in his household, would he not have lost his justification for disobeying the will of God? Joe Mizzi believes Abraham could have refused God’s command to sacrifice Isaac and to circumcise all in his household and that Abraham would have still been justified. Yet, Scripture tells us that if we do not do the will of God, we do not enter the Kingdom. Who do you want to believe…Joe Mizzi, or the Bible?

    Joe Mizzi: Faith Working Through Love
    Once more it must pointed out that the question is not about the propriety and necessity of good works in the life of believers. On this point, Paul, Luther and the Pope are in agreement. The question, though, has to do with the purpose of such works.

    In Catholicism, the faithful are urged to do works in the hope that they will eventually become ̵ 6;really’ just in the eyes of God on account of their ‘love to God and neighbour’. In Paul’s teaching, we are not justified on account of any personal works, but by faith; good works follow after faith and justification. In Catholicism faith is insufficient; it must be supplemented by works to really justify. In biblical Christianity, faith is sufficient, faith truly justifies the beliver on account of Christ’s blood and righteousness, and having justified the sinner, faith then works by love (Galatians 5:6) to the glory of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. In Catholicism justification is by faith and works – therefore it cannot be of grace (Romans 11:6); in biblical Christianity justification is by faith, that it might be of grace (Romans 4:16).

    My Comments: The question is not about the “purpose of such works,” the question is this: If we do not do the works that God has prepared for us bef orehand that we should walk in them (Eph 2:10), will we still keep our justification, or will we lose our justification? In other words, if we do not do the will of God for our lives, will we still enter the Kingdom (Matt 7:21)?

    In Catholicism, the faithful are urged to do good works for the love of God. If one does good works for any reason other than the love of God, then the good work is essentially useless, in spiritual terms. They are urged to continually grow in love of God, by opening their hearts up to more and more of God’s grace through prayer, reception of the sacraments, and good works.

    In Catholicism, as in the Bible, faith alone is indeed insufficient (James 2:24). In Catholicism, as in the Bible, works alone are indeed insufficient (Heb 11:6). What counts is faith working through love (Gal 5:6) and all by the grace of God (Titus 3:7).

    Here we see Joe once again asserting that “good works follow after faith and justification,” ; but notice he doesn’t give us a scripture verse which tells us such a thing. Has he not read Jesus’ words to the seven churches in Rev 2 and 3? It is obvious that some of the justified failed to do the good works Jesus requires of them.

    Joe goes on to say one of the things that has absolutely puzzled me about folks like him. Consider that he admits, earlier in his email, that good works are done by grace. And, he also believes that faith is by grace. So, when he says that in Catholicism salvation is by faith and works, “therefore it cannot be of grace,” that is one of the most ridiculous things I believe I’ve ever read. Faith is by grace. Works are by grace. But, faith and works together, are not by grace. I don’t know what else to call that kind of logic, except idiotic. A first class example that the dumbest of ideas come out of the mouths of the smartest of people.

    One last thing: If we need works in order to be “rea lly” justified as Catholics, then how can we say an infant is justified after his or her Baptism? What work did that infant do to be justified? None. Is that infant not “really” justified because it hasn’t done any works, as Joe contends? No! That infant, upon its Baptism, is as justified as a soul can possibly be – yet it has done no works. Think about that, Dr. Joe.

    Joe Mizzi: Here then is the dividing line between Trent and Luther, Catholicism and Protestantism, the true gospel and its counterfeit. May God give us the grace to believe in Jesus his Son, and being justified by faith alone, to give ourselves to love God and our neighbour from our hearts.

    My Comments: Here then is the dividing line between truth and error, between Joe Mizzi’s version of Catholicism and the true version of Catholicism, between insanity and reason, be tween the true gospel and the false gospel, between those who believe the Son and those who believe the father of all lies. Let us pray that Joe Mizzi will one day have the scales removed from his eyes and that his wounds will one day be healed.

28. Stephen says on Jan 5, 2009 @ 03:46 PM:

    2000 years and you guys still can't agree on doctrine. Love God.

29. Mike says on Jan 5, 2009 @ 09:40 PM:

    Wow, David that was really painful to read. Your frustration is evident in every gut wrenching rebuttal. Who is Joe Mizzi anyway? I think you are wise not to read him again.

    Surely, our purpose here is not to fight the Reformation over again. It is to try and figure out what the Pope means when he appears to concede that the Reformation was not such a great mistake after all. His definition that justification is by faith, without the works of the law, as long as that faith is not placed in opposition to charity, is a welcome admission. What I really worry about is that he is making charity conditional for justification. For sure, Paul does link justification with sanctification, but he does not confuse the two. As I understand him, God justifies us when we have faith in Christ, then he sanctifies us so that we can love him in return, and show that love practically by fighting against inward sin and by serving others (all by his grace). Justification is God’s work for us; sanctification is God’s work in us.

    If this is what the Pope is saying, I think it is wonderful. I hope that this message will be declared in the Catholic churches all over the world. However, from talking to many Catholics I can say that it is not a message that is understood by the general mass of the rank and file within the Catholic fold (nor in the Protestant fold for that matter); they are all busily working to save themselves through ceremonies and “good works” (which in the pure light of day, are really not that good).

    And, Stephen, your point is well taken, but the problem is not the doctrines, or our inability to agree on them, the problem is that we poor human beings just cannot think about these things without our unsanctified nature pushing its nose in and producing hurt feelings and wrath. You are right, love is indeed the answer, for it will enable us to disagree without hating each other, and this is why we must add it to our faith, not to justify us, but to please our great Lord who gave his Son to save us unlovely rebels.

30. Stephen says on Jan 6, 2009 @ 12:13 PM:

    My personal position ( agnostic) is if you truly love God then everything else will follow. i.e you will want to do works of charity because you can't help it not because you want to go to Heaven.

31. Mike says on Jan 6, 2009 @ 09:17 PM:

    Stephen, there is nothing agnostic about your statement - it is a very informed summary of the motivation that impels all who truly know the Lord. He does the saving through his agonizing death on Calvary, and we are so overcome with gratitude - as unworthy as we are - that we endeavor to do the serving.

    Now, that is good doctrine!

32. Rayburne says on Jan 7, 2009 @ 01:56 PM:

    Concerning the faith necessary for justification (justifying faith), the Reformers did not use the term “alone” (by grace [alone], through faith [alone] in Christ [alone) in the sense that James uses it in James 2:17: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”. To be sure, as David Castlen has rightly pointed out, “The Protestant concept of justification by faith alone never excluded good works in the life of the believer. On the character of genuine faith, Luther wrote: ‘Faith cannot help doing good works constantly.” Indeed, good works , as both Paul, in Ephesians 2:10, and James, in James 2:14, 17, 18, 20, clearly taught were the fruit or evidence that the faith one possessed was saving or justifying faith and not a dead faith (one devoid of good works). Rather, the Reformers, when proclaiming the doctrine of justification by faith [alone] apart from any works of the law or “good works” of our own, carefully used the expression “faith alone” to safeguard the doctrine from the error of adding any meritorious works or deeds of our own to what God has so plainly stated in His Word concerning the requirements for salvation. The one and only Bible answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved? (Acts 16:30) is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31).

    “Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner (“Louis Berkhof, “Systematic Theology,” p. 513.).

    Since Scripture teaches us very clearly that man is justified freely by the grace of God (Romans 3:24) and that he cannot be possibly justified by the works of the law (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11); negatively, the ground of justification cannot be found in any virtue of man , nor in his good works; and positively, it (the ground of justification) can be found only in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to the sinner in justification. This is plainly taught in several passages of scripture, such as Romans 3:24; 5:9; 8:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11; 2 Corinth. 5:21; Phil. 3:9, etc. This is why the Reformers were adamant in rejecting the idea of Rome that justification lies, at least in part, in the inherent righteousness of the regenerate and in good works, and substituted for it the doctrine that it is found only in the imputed righteousness of the Redeemer, and emphasized the fact that man is justified freely through faith (the instrument of justification) which receives and rests in Christ only for salvation. Moreover, they rejected the doctrine of a progressive justification, and held that it was instantaneous and complete, and did not depend for its completion on some further satisfaction for sin.
    
    Biblically speaking, scripture never says that we are justified “on account of our faith”. Faith is never represented as the ground of our justification. Rather, the Bible states explicitly that it is Christ who justifies the ungodly through faith (see Roman 4:5; 5:9). That is to say, it is Christ, the sinless Lamb of God (not our faith per se) who justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5, 5:9) through faith in what He (Christ) has done to redeem them (His perfect sinless substitutionary and propitiatory death in the sinners place and resurrection), and not in what they could ever do to redeem themselves. If faith were the ground, not the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, faith would have to be regarded as meritorious work of man. And this would be the introduction of the doctrine of justification of works, which Paul and the apostles oppose consistently (Rom. 3:21, 27, 28; 4:3-4; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:11;etc.). We are told that Abraham’s faith was reckoned unto him for righteousness (Rom. 4:3, 9, 22), but in view of the whole argument this surely cannot mean that in his case faith as a work took the place of the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ (sinners in both Old and New Testament were saved by grace through faith in Christ). Paul and the other apostles leave no doubt, biblically speaking, that only the righteousness of Christ imputed to us is our justification and works, as in the case of Abraham (Romans 4:3) and James (2:24), merely serve to confirm their justification by faith--that their faith is justifying faith and not a dead faith.

    Any worthwhile and biblical discussion of justifying faith must, of necessity, identify the SOURCE or ORIGIN and OBJECT of that faith. Faith is only as good and trustworthy as the object (in this case, the Person of Christ) into which it is placed. Faith which originates from within oneself (subjective faith) does not save, otherwise everyone who claims to have faith irrespective of what kind of faith it is, would be saved. One, for example, can distinguish intellectual faith (intellectual assent to certain facts) from temporal faith ( I.e. faith that the farmer’s crops will have rain tomorrow). Neither is justifying faith. As David rightly pointed out in his comment, “faith without works,” although dead (James 2:20) is still faith", but the big problem is it is not justifying faith. Nor does it matter as to the degree of one’s faith. For example, it is much better to have a little faith that 10 inches of ice on the pond will support you than a lot of faith in one inch of ice on the pond. Further, if faith originates with us (and not God); that is to say, it is within our ability and will to believe in Christ in and of ourselves at any time, then such faith is neither unmerited nor the free gift of God’s redeeming grace. In truth, such faith is meritorious because it is the means by which we gain acceptance in the sight of God. Dare we think for one moment that there is some virtue in our faith in and of ourselves that merits our justification or standing before God.? It is Christ, the sinless Lamb of God (not our faith per se) Who alone justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5; 5:9). Faith is simply a term for our spiritual union with Christ. In short, the Christian stands justified (declared righteous) before God because he is in Christ, Who alone justifies the ungodly.

    The biblical ground of our justification, as we have said, is the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, which God freely and graciously bestows on all who believe in Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Saviour. Martin Luther, who read about the righteousness of God many times in the Psalms, thought it meant God’s punitive righteousness, whereby he punishes sinners. But one day, as he was reading and contemplating the meaning of Romans 1:16-17, especially verse 17: “ For in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith,” the light suddenly dawned on him under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and he understood for the first time that the “righteousness of God” Paul had in mind was not God’s punitive justice which leads Him to punish sinners, but rather a righteousness which was a spotless and perfect righteousness, earned by Christ, which God gives to the needy sinner, and which that sinner accepts by faith. No longer did Luther seek the basis for peace of soul in himself, in his own good works (How can one ever know how much works is enough?),
    and peace and joy now flooded his soul as he looked away from himself to Christ (the object of justifying faith). Now he could live by faith (Romans 1:17) instead of grovelling in fear.

    Moreover, as the Bible clearly teaches and Luther discovered for himself, the fruit of justification is much more than pardon or forgiveness of sins. Those who are justified have “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1), “assurance of salvation” (Rom. 5:1-10) and “an inheritance among those who are sanctified in Me” (Jesus’ words in Acts 26:18). On this note, it is important to note that God does not declare the sinner righteous contrary to fact. The divine declaration is not to the effect that these sinners are righteousness in themselves, but that they are clothed with the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. This perfect righteousness, earned by Christ, is freely imputed to them. It is not the personal subjective righteousness of Christ, but His vicarious covenant righteousness, that is imputed to those who are in themselves unrighteous, and all to the glory of God. Contrary to what some believe, justification is not a licence to sin or break God’s law (antinomianism), as even the lives of the justified clearly show. In justification the sure foundation is laid for that vital spiritual union with Christ which secures our sanctification and through which the Holy Spirit, the Giver of spiritual life, also sets apart the believer unto Himself (the beginning of sanctification) and enables him/her to be truly holy in principle and abound in good works which will glorify God.Nevertheless, Paul carefully distinguishes justification from sanctification.

    We are saved not by a righteousness that originates in whole or part with us, not by a righteousness of our own that can somehow earn or merit God’s favour, but rather by a righteousness that comes solely and completely from God(Rom. 3:22)--a spotless and perfect righteousness, earned by Christ, which God graciously and freely bestows upon all who believe. Which is what the apostle Paul means when he states in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For he (God) made Him (Christ) who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him,” and in 1 Corinthians 1:30: “But of Him (God) you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” Not only does Christ bring us righteousness; He is our righteousness. And we are justified (declared righteous) because we are in Him. For further biblical confirmation, the New Testament verb translated “to justify” (Greek, dikaioo) is clearly used in a forensic or legal sense in Romans 4:5: “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies (Gk, dikaiountai) the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. The verb rendered “accounted” or “credited” (logizetai) is a legal term. “To justify” (dikaioo) here does not mean “to make righteous” but “to declare righteous.” The opposite of condemnation (Rom. 8:1) is not “making righteous” but “declaring righteous.” In other words, the faith of this person is credited to his account as righteousness (“his faith is accounted for righteousness”). By dikaioo Paul clearly means the legal imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner. For other examples of the forensic use of dikaioo (“to justify”), see Romans 3:20, 24, 26, 28; 5:1, 9; Rom. 8:30; 1 Corinth. 6:11; Gal. 2:16; 3:24; Titus 3:7.

    Romans 8:30 is even more telling of the fact that justification takes place in the life of a believer once for all, and not repeatedly: “Moreover, whom He predestined, these he also called; whom he called, these He also justified (edikaiosen, the aorist tense implies once-for-all action); and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” In other words, the justification of all who come to Christ in true repentance and faith (the predestined or divinely called ones), as indicated by the once-for-all-time-action meaning of the aorist tense of the verb “he also justified” (edikaiosen), is as certain as if it had already taken place. Moreover, though the tense of edoxasen in the words (“he also glorified”) in this passage is aorist, it should be understood as a proleptic aorist, pointing to the future (see John Murray, “The Epistle to the Romans: Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1959, 1:321). In short, according to Romans 8:30, it is as certain that all who are in Christ (the divinely called and justified ones) will, without exception, be glorified as if it had already happened because this final stage or outcome is grounded in the expressed will and plan of God. God, the Holy Spirit, the supreme Author of divine revelation, has spoken it in His Word: “For the Lord will not cast off His people” (Psalm 94:14). “For the Lord loves justice and does not forsake His saints; they are preserved forever” (Psalm 37: 28). Contrary to the clear teaching of Romans 4:5-6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 8:30 and many other biblical texts, Rome explicitly denies that man is justified through the imputation of Christ’s Righteousness alone (see Canon 11 of Trent) and distinguishes “unformed faith” (fides informis), which is insufficient for justification, from “faith formed by love” (fides caritate formata) or justifying faith, which happens only when a person has received infused grace in baptism (from “The Scholastic View of Faith,” Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent). In short, while protestants would say that the instrumental cause of justification is faith, Trent would say that it is baptism (The Church Teaches, pp. 233-234). Has Rome currently changed from the position held by Trent? I don’t know. Also, contrary to the clear teaching of Romans 8:30 that those whom God justifies He will glorify, Trent takes the position that the grace of justification, once having been received, can again be lost through unbelief, which causes loss of faith, and also by any other mortal sin, even though faith is not lost, be it “unformed faith” and not justifying faith (see The Church Teaches, p. 240). Again, I don’t know if Rome has changed from the position held by Trent. Sufficient it is to say that this is far different from the protestant concept of justification grounded in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, which God graciously and freely imputes to the believing sinner once for all time. There is no more or less in justification; man is either fully justified, or he is not justified at all. In distinction from it sanctification is a process, which will never be completed in this life, but only in eternity when we stand in our incorruptible glorified bodies before the Lord Who has redeemed us.

    If Romans 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Romans 8:30, etc. were the only biblical passages contrary to Trent’s position, that would be enough, but many other passages (I.e. Eph. 1:4-5; 1:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Acts 13:48; John 10:27-29; John 6:37, 39; Psalm 94:14; etc.) teach explicitly that God Himself guarantees the completion of salvation from beginning to end--from divine calling to justification and final glorification (for all eternity) for all who, by His sovereign will and plan, are brought to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

    Though justification is not a licence to sin, as already said, God promises to forgive the sins of believers now and in the future, after they presumably been justified. Jesus teaches that if we forgive men when they sin, our heavenly Father will also forgive us (Matt. 6:14); and John affirms that when we confess our sins, God will forgive them (I John 1:9). From the standpoint of the believer, I believe it is better to say that justification means the forgiveness of all past and present sins, and the judicial ground for the forgiveness of future sins.

33. Rayburne says on Jan 7, 2009 @ 04:47 PM:

    As to the SOURCE or ORIGIN of faith; namely God,
    Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary (1972-77), so well expressed this truth in his insightful commentary on Ephesians 2:8-9: "But when we say that "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves..('and that' is a reference to the entire clause that precedes it, not specifically 'faith'), we're talking about the whole thing--this 'by grace through faith' salvation--and if it is not of ourselves ('by grace through faith' salvation)--the faith is not of ourselves, and the grace is not of ourselves,---"it is the gift of God."
    
    David,one last comment. be we ever so well informed about theology (or tradition), God will not ask us for a theological defence of our unbelief (which is really what agnosticism is). As others have pointed out to you, salvation is a self-disclosure or divne revelation of the Creator-God in Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16-17; Gal. 1:12). It is my prayer (and also others) that God will,by the power of the Holy Spirit,reveal Himself to you in the Person of Jesus Christ--that he will remove every obstacle in the way of your coming to faith in HIM (He knows what they are),draw you by Spirit to Himself in repentance and faith (John 6:44, 65) and give you "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1), "assurance of salvation" (Romans 5:1-10) and "an inheritance among those who are sanctified in Me [Christ](Acts 26:18). Don't worry, if you presently believe no one can prove God's existence; God is able to change your heart and mind, and totally convince you of His reality. When it happens, like the apostle Paul (who persecuted Christians unto death), Martin Luther, John Newton (who had been involved in the slave trade for years), John Wesley and millions of others around the globe you will be glad that Mike, myself,Isaac, Steven, and others have had this exchange with you. I would encourage you to spend time in the Word of God and in prayer that God might extend His grace and mercy to you through the knowledge of Jesus Christ, Whom to know is to have life eternal (John 17:3; 1 John 5:11-13, 20). God bless and take

34. David Castlen says on Jan 12, 2009 @ 02:31 PM:

    Nothing has given me more joy than the realization there is a God; that He is manifested in Jesus Christ; that he is not only interested in me, but loves me; that His essence is love, in fact He is love; that I can come closer to Him via the sacraments and prayer. In the "Our Father" the "Thou Kingdom come" has been made so evident to me when I started studying Logic and Hugh Ross (a Protesant). It sounds so 'reliogious' but truly joy (not happiness, read Kreeft) can be attained and what a satisfaction: How? forget about yourself and look at Jesus. How? The unclothed, the poor, the imprisoned; try it, you'll like it.

35. Rayburne says on Jan 13, 2009 @ 06:39 PM:

    What can I say? The whole discussion has concerned how one may be justified (declared righteous) before God, and such a justification carries with it certain benefits that accrue from coming to Christ in repentance and faith, chiefly "peace with God" (Romans 5:1, assurance of sins forgiven and eternal life in Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23). It may sound somewhat presumptuous to some people (indeed some religious traditions may deny it is possible to know one has been justified here and now for all eternity), but this indeed is the very heart of justification and exactly what the Bible teaches (and the experience of multiple millions of people, who have come to Christ alone for salvation, have verified). 1 John 5:13 states,"These things Have I written unto you that believe (present tense) on the name of the Son of God...that ye may know that ye have (present tense) eternal life.." Read the preceding verses: "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath (present tense) life and he that hath not the Son of God hath not (present tense) life" (i John 5:11-12).

    Do you know that you have spiritual life (eternal life) abiding in you through the indwelling Spirit of God? Have you, through the enablement of the Holy Spirit (john 6:44) seen yourself as a lost sinner (remember, Jesus said,in Matthew 18:11: that he came to save the lost)and have you personally called upon Christ as your own personal Lord and Saviour to save you from sin and give you eternal life in Him? Do you know "peace with God" (Romans 5:1) through faith in Jesus Christ? Do you know the assurance and joy of sins forgiven and a home in heaven awaiting you? Have you had a heart/life-transforming encounter with the Risen Christ through the power of the saving gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16-17).

    If you have indeed come to Christ in repentance and faith for salvation, and have believed the gospel, you should be able to answer in the affirmative to all of the above questions. If not, you need to be honest with God and with yourself. As Scripture clearly teaches and millions can testify worldwide, we will either stand before Him (God)clothed in the filty rags or garments of our own sin (Isaiah 64:6)and works of self-righteousness (Titus 3:5), or clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ alone on that Judgment Day. The choice is ours and our eternal destiny depends on it.
    Salvation (including eternal life in jesus Christ, forgiveness of sins, justification before a holy and righteous God), as the scriptures explicitly and unequivocally affirm, is found not in the sacraments or ordinances (Mass, Baptism, Lord's Supper, etc.), not in good works (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5),not in logic or academic rigorous study, not even in expending our lives sacrificially in helping the poor, the downcast, the imprisoned, etc. Rather, salvation (including eternal life, forgiveness of sins, justification before God, etc) is found only in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, Whom to know is to have life eternal (John 17:3; 1 John 5:11-12. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Jesus said, "For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matthew 9:13).

    Do you see yourself as righteous in and of yourself? OR, do you see yourself as hopelessly and spiritually lost, under the curse and condemnation of God's holy law apart from Christ?(Matthew 18:11; 2 Cor. 4:3-4; Galatians 3:10). If you do not see yourself as God sees you according to His revealed Word, then, my friend, according to scripture and our Lord, you have no part with Him in God's great salvation. It is like a doctor who has prescribed a cure for his patient's illness (we are all sin sick), but that patient will not take the medicine or cure. God has diagnosed our fallen condition clearly in His Word as spiritualy dead to the things of God and the Spirit (Ephesians 2:1; 1 Cor. 2:12-14), spiritually blind (Eph. 4:18) and hostile to God by nature and by choice (Romans 8:7). He has also prescribed the cure for man's terrible dilemna (in bondage to sin, Satan, and self). But it is up to us to take the cure God has plainly provided in the Person of Christ. He paid for it at tremendous cost (His only begotten Son), so the most hideous and horrendous sin of all is to go our own way and scorn (reject or trample afoot) the perfect Sacrifice of God's Son for our sins. We all have that choice and are all culpable for what we do with Christ. The question is: What will he do with us when we stand before HIm without His perfect garments (clothing) of salvation (Righteousness)? Enough of this liberal pickle about love. yes, God is love (that is one important attribute, but He also is righteous and just (that is an equally important attribute), and He will (and must) punish sin; otherwise,He would be neither loving nor just. Just read his rebuke to the slef-righteous Pharisees, who trusted that they were good enough to please God by their zeal for the law (Matthew 23:33). I'm sorry I had to come on so strong, but I would rather tell you the uncompromising truth, even if it offends you, then give you a false security that all is well when it is not (like many churches regrettably do today). God bless, Rayburne.
    

36. Stephen says on Jan 14, 2009 @ 02:32 AM:

    Hey guys can you shorten your posts? My monitor is running out of ink.

37. David Castlen says on Jan 14, 2009 @ 08:48 AM:

    “Enough of this liberal pickle”! Oh! That hurts! Nothing can cut to my ego harder, and more brutally, than allowing me to infer that another views me or my ideas as liberal. Of course, this just proves I am a sinner; my pride has raised its ugly head.

    An Orthodox, Conservative clings to the Good, the Truth and truth, the beautiful; is unchanging, unwavering, consistent, reliable – integrity. A Conservative is open to other’s views, in a humble way; i.e., tolerant, but will never accept them and will speak out against them if they are wrong.

    Gosh, those are the main attributes of love: suffers long, humble, not boastful, polite, doesn’t get excited about their enemies misfortunes (shotinfrueda[spelling]), bears all things…..love is conservative…..

    Love is the most important of all the virtues: Faith may fail, Love never fails.

    Now, have Faith Hope and Love; but the most important is love. No, there may be those who look at a discussion of love as “liberal pickle,” but this conservative will always pray for more of it.

38. Rayburne says on Jan 14, 2009 @ 10:53 AM:

    You have taken my comment out of context, David, and you know it. I was not discussing the virtue of love (which is tremendously important and always characterizes saving or justifying faith in action), but rather the attributes of God's righteousness (holiness)and justice, which always balance His demonstration or exercise of love, and without which genuine love would be meaningless. I think I have been very open to (and tolerant of) your views, and have spoke out against them when I felt they were wrong. However, sometimes it is not easy to speak the uncompromising truth in love without offending that person, because the Word of God (see Heb. 4:12) cuts both ways in searching our hearts, helping us to see ourselves as God sees us and, as you rightly mentioned, "pride raises [has raised] its ugly head." I remember a wise old preacher once said to me, "If the shoe fits, then wear it.". I didn't like it either, but it helped me to face up to the truth (especially the truth about myself). I have never rejoiced in anyone's misfortune, liberal or conservative and I am well aware of what Scripture says characterizes love (1 Corinthians 13). My Mom was very fond of this chapter and demonstrated its truth in her life to all (neighbour or stanger, friend or foe) who entered our home. I know I will see her again when mt time here is over. I would like to wish you God's best, David, because He, like no other, truly knows our deepest needs and understands our human condition. God bless and take care, Rayburne.

39. David Castlen says on Jan 14, 2009 @ 11:28 AM:

    Rayburne,
    I think I may have fashioned my words in such a way as to create contention. This was not my purpose. I know this much: if what you say is true of yourself, you are very close to our God, Jesus Christ; what more can a man want or need? As Peter Kreeft says (I am paraphrasing and mispelling)....one can have right belief and wrong faith and he is doomed; another can have wrong belief and right faith and he is saved. I feel you are in the latter catagory - the saved. What, in my opinion, you lack in logic you make up for in heart and enthusiasm. God bless you, I am sorry for not being a better wordsmith.

40. Mike says on Jan 14, 2009 @ 08:07 PM:

    Hey, I think we are all getting a little emotional here. This is a discussion trying to determine how the Pope thinks we are saved. It will do no good assuring each other of salvation (even though ignorant of right belief), if the Pope, or the Bible, does not agree with us.

    I still think, despite Ray’s in-depth expositions, that there remains a confusion of sanctification and justification. This is not surprising, since it caused the reformation in the first place. Are we “declared” justified by our faith (by grace), or are we “made” just by our faith and works (grace plus merit – merit as defined by the Roman Catholic Church)?

    Biblically, I think it is pretty clear, we are first declared righteous (Justified), and then made righteous (Sanctification). The sanctification does not make us more “just”, for it is the consequence of being just. The point being that we cannot expect to be justified by the quality of our sanctification, and yet this is what Catholic doctrine seems to teach.

    This is certainly the understanding of my Catholic friends. While agreeing that Christ is the Savior, they cannot claim to be saved and so are working to earn his favor, hoping that he will save them because of their commitment to the Church, the sacraments, and their “nice” guy status. Very few of them, if any, are out there with the “unclothed, the poor, and the imprisoned,” for, like the rest of us, they are struggling to get through this life, trying to support their families, while at the same time wrestling with inbred depravity.

    I just think it is sad, that instead of pointing sinners to a Savior who promises that he saves the “chief of sinners” completely; people are told to earn their justification by their sanctification, as regulated by the disciplines of the Church. This can hardly be the joy that Kreeft (and I really appreciate his work), following Lewis, has in mind.

    Ray is clear about the Protestant understanding of the way of Salvation, please tell me and my Catholic friends that we have misunderstood the Roman Catholic teaching on the way of Salvation.

41. yburne says on Jan 15, 2009 @ 06:32 AM:

    Thanks for your comment Mike, but I don't think I have misunderstood justification and sanctification, as you stated.. I said when we are justified (declared righteous--an instantaneous declarative act) we are also set apart by God unto holiness,which is when sanctification (a lifelong process) begins. I do not believe sanctification comes at some point after our justification, nor do I believe that it makes us righteous. It is, as Mike pointed out, the consequence of being justified. I do not think this disagrees with what the Reformers believed and what the great preachers of the past (Whitefield, Spurgeon, Edwards,etc.) believed. However,both are to be carefully distinguished and not confused--which is what Catholics do, as Mike as rightly pointed out. I love my brother in the Lord and we will have to disagree on this one, Mike. I totally agree that we need to point sinners to the only Saviour who welcomes sinners to come to Him in repentance and faith for salvation.

42. Rayburne says on Jan 15, 2009 @ 07:07 AM:

    I believe the real point of confusion between Catholics and Protestants is over what we (protestants) call justification and what we call sanctification. In Roman Catholic theology according to Trent, justification is thought of as an infusion of grace which results in a change in man's spiritual and moral nature, rather than a declarative act, in which God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the sinner. Justification is here describes as not merely the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man. We would include remission of sins under justification and the renewal of the person under sanctification, but in the theology of Trent both remission and renewal are thought of as aspects of justification.

43. Mike says on Jan 15, 2009 @ 07:48 AM:

    Yes, Rayburne, I think you are right on, but I am still confused about the Pope's statements. Is he disavowing Trent, or modifying it? This would be really something, and good news for Catholics everywhere because then they could come to Christ through grace, without having to leapfrog over the traditions of the Church first.

44. Rayburne says on Jan 15, 2009 @ 10:58 AM:

    I have been checking out what I said about justification and sanctification, and I believe you are right, Mike. I have to be careful here that I do not misrepresent what the Reformers believed about justification and sanctification. They made a clear distinction between the two, regarding justification as a legal or declarative act of divine grace, affecting the judicial status or standing of man before God, and sanctification as a moral or re-creative work, changing the inner nature of man. But while they made a careful distinction between the two, they also stressed their inseparable connection. While deeply convinced that man is justified by faith alone, they also understood that the faith which justifies is not alone. Justification is at once followed by sanctification, since God sends out the Spirit of His Son into the hearts of His own as soon as they are justified, and that Spirit is the Spirit of sanctification. In short, as cannot be overemphasized, sanctification is the fruit (or, as Mike said, the consequence)of justification, which means that sanctification must logically follow justification at some point. Someone has compared it to the action of turning on the water in a faucet. The moment you turn on the faucet, the water flows freely, but in sequence the faucet had to be turned on first. Sanctification, therefore, is impossible without justification, and both are the fruits of the grace of God in the redemption of sinners. God bless, Rayburne.

45. John J. Nursing-Student says on Jan 18, 2009 @ 10:02 PM:

    In Catholics I have met, I have seen some variety of positions taken on the issue. One Catholic, a very intelligent layman and knowledgable of the Bible--remarked on one passage of Scripture (and I can't remember for the life of me which one) by saying that "This shows that we don't have to be constantly trying to earn our salvation." On the opposite side of the spectrum, I was vacationing near Monterey, CA and I visited one of the old Spanish missions with an uncle of mine. I stopped by the gift shop after seeing all the sights and purchased a Catholic tract which purported to tell the reader how to get to Heaven. It was written by a Catholic priest. Through page after page after page (and I think this tract was 20-30 pages), I was given the ultimate secret on how to get to heaven: Avoid mortal sin. The writer of the tract when on and on about how mortal sin kills the soul, how committing it will land the soul in hell, etc. The tract only spoke of Christ briefly, in passing, and it never so much as mentioned the necessity of placing one's faith in Him, and His atoning work on the Cross. Even though I am educated enough to know that the priest who published that tract did a poor job of explaining the full doctrine of what Catholics believe about salvation, it still troubles me greatly that such a tract could ever be published and distributed in Catholic circles.

46. Rayburne says on Jan 19, 2009 @ 10:38 AM:

    Hi David. In response to your last comment, with all due respect to Peter Kreeft, when you have understood and obeyed the saving Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ, as taught in the scriptures (Rom. 1:16-19), you can't have "right belief and wrong faith" or "wrong belief and right faith". You have either placed you faith completely and solely in Christ's alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Acts 16:31); that is, in His perfect righteousness alone to save you from sin, or else you are trusting in something else to save you from sin and eternal ruin (i.e. your own righteousness or good works, or a mixture of your faith in Christ plus the sacraments, good works and faithfulness to the teachings of the Catholic Church, etc.). In this case, belief/faith in anything other than Christ and His finished, redemptive work (death and resurrection) is not saving or justifying faith and constitutes serious error (wrong belief or wrong faith, if you like). According to scripture, it is it is Christ (a Person) who saves us through faith (which is a gift of God's grace) and God promises to save all who will come to Him in repentance and faith for salvation (John 6:37; Romans 10:13). God bless.

47. David Castlen says on Jan 19, 2009 @ 03:09 PM:

    To John J. Nursing Student
    1. Catholic dogma has never changed since St. John the Apostle died. There have only been clarifications; e.g., The Trinity.
    2. Although there are people who claim to be Catholic, Cafeteria Catholics, on major issues there is only one Catholic dogma. (There are Ted Kennedy catholics but there is no Catholic Ted Kenndedy).
    3. The best place to go to for what Catholic dogma is, is the Catechism. A web sight that is helpful is www.Catholic answers.com

48. John J. Nursing-Student says on Jan 19, 2009 @ 03:51 PM:

    To David:
    I'm pretty familiar with Catholic doctrines, at least the major ones. In fact, I did a couple of online topical debates against a popular Catholic apologist on his website back in the day. That's why the tract troubled me, I guess...because I KNOW that Fr. so-and-so did not present the actual doctrine of salvation as the Catholics understand it, yet somehow was able to distribute his material at a religious bookstore. This is no "nominal" Catholic, but a priest, apparently in good standing with the church.

    Unfortunately, there are some Catholics who have been to mass and still don't seem to understand the doctrine of salvation as the Church teaches it. I think the area of teaching a clear doctrine of salvation is one area where the Protestants have the Catholics beat...I defy anyone to find a reasonably intelligent person who grew up in, say, a Southern Baptist Church, who is not able to at once explain the doctrine of Salvation based on faith in the saving work of Christ. The sad truth is that there are Catholics who are trying to earn their way into Heaven with good works and avoiding mortal sin, and attending Mass a jillion times has somehow still not banished such a notion from their minds.

49. David Castlen says on Jan 19, 2009 @ 05:51 PM:

    What I would do to get a jillion Masses in! God has said we MUST EAT His flesh and drink His blood....he did not suggest it.

50. Mike says on Jan 19, 2009 @ 06:33 PM:

    Ouch, David, you are surely tongue in cheek! If this was Catholic doctrine we would not even have to discuss the Pope’s comments. We started this thread because the Pope seriously grappled with Paul’s teaching on Justification by faith.

    I think John is right. Yes, there are the learned apologetic declarations of Catholic doctrine,as you mentioned, but the rank and file parishioners in the churches are as familiar with Christian salvation as the average Hindu.

    The fact is that my Catholic friends are not “Cafeteria Catholics,” they sincerely think that their being part of the “true Church,” and partaking of the sacraments, and not sinning too much, will win them the favor of Christ and they will squeeze in finally (after a while in purgatory).

    I am not so sure that this misunderstanding is entirely their fault; the Church never corrects them, not in South America, or anywhere else in the world for that matter (though if you are serious, David, then they don’t need correcting).

    The thing is, what should we tell them if they do sincerely want to be saved through the Catholic Church? I know what to tell them as far as the Bible is concerned – repent and trust in the blood of Christ shed for sinners - but is giving the Pope’s message of justification through “faith and charity” sufficient, or will they still be missing something according to the Church? For sure, I am not going to tell them to get a “jillion masses in.”

51. David Castlen says on Jan 20, 2009 @ 02:04 PM:

    First, tell them to get those Masses in; then I will tell you what to tell them.

52. David Castlen says on Jan 20, 2009 @ 02:25 PM:

    First, tell them to get those Masses in; then I will tell you what to tell them.

53. David Castlen says on Jan 20, 2009 @ 02:38 PM:

    OK Mike and Rayburne and John here is a complete answer as best as I can do:
    Salvation

    Romans 3:28 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Absolutely!!! Catholic Teaching believes 100% in this and all Scripture. However, as most Protestants assume, Catholic Teaching, interpretation, finds a different conclusion. Below I will try to respond. Most of the information I will provide you comes from John Martignoni (www.biblechristiansociety.com), Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, Catholic Answers at www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp, The Catholic Catechism, Scott Hahn’s sight www.salvationhistory.com and other publications which I will try to note as I am about as quick as mud. By the way, I bet you are personally acquainted with some or all of these authors.

    Prologue:

    I was raised by the best father a kid could be blessed with. It is my first experience with grace. I was given gold and I didn’t (even) ask for it. As a young child I never slept much so when I rose early in the morning dad would take me to daily mass with him. I could not have been over three because I know the date when we moved from that location. I remember at that early age the serenity that over-took me when we were in the church, God’s house. And, as clear as I see this keyboard, I can see my dad’s hands white with tension as he prayed – every day. Over the years, many great things have happened because of my dad and his love for the retarded. My brothers tell me I was his first retarded. They are not kind. Exemplem docit, that was my dad: the example teaches. I can never remember him loosing his temper except when I once used the Lord’s name in vain – my ears are still ringing. I was seventeen. He was always full of enthusiasm but seemed to be at ease. Just being with him was satisfying – truly he was a wise man. First he feared God in all ways both respecting God and fear of God. Dad was Poetry in Motion.

    For some reason, in my later years as a young adult I got way off track and was soon without Jesus. Well, I know the reason: pride. Never the less, after many years I found Christ again, but in a Baptist church. Dad was not overjoyed with the fact I was with the Baptist but he was ecstatic I was with God again. He often said if we Catholics had the commitment that the Baptist have we wouldn’t have half the problems we do. We’ve had many discussions over the last seven years on an array of topics: Augustine, Kreeft, The Eucharist, Baptism, Salvation etc. He has never tried to convince me that my beliefs were wrong; he would just drop some hints like, “What did Jesus mean by, ‘….eat my body and drink my blood.’ ”

    I got so excited about the bible I would seldom go a day without reading the bible. In fact, I took John Macarthur’s advice and did a study program on my own. I read the same seven chapters of the New Testament everyday for thirty days and three chapters of the Old Testament. Within two years I had the completed the bible along with a number of commentaries. This was a remarkable suggestion from McArther because this was the method I used to get through college – not being the fastest learner I have found over the years that repetition and mind pictures help me a lot.

    Eventually, I was asked to teach a Sunday School class. This is not a big accomplishment – where I went to church we were always short of teachers.

    Here is something that sounds made up. If I am lying may God strike me down with lighting? When I was given the assignment that afternoon I just opened my bible and found myself in James the Third chapter. You know what it says, don’t you? Boy did that scare me! As time progressed as a teacher I was always cognizant of asking what is the truth in a particular matter, where do I go, how does this author believe this and another just as authoritative as the other believe differently. I will never forget the time a debate raged in class over healing, and speaking in tongues, and the time when someone said that God was not the cause of all events. I discovered a number of class members did not believe in “once saved always saved.” I always opened class by reading a psalm. On one occasions a guy said, after I had read the day’s opening psalm, that he did not believe the psalms were God inspired. Surely I thought, there must be a solid answer or place to go to, to find these answers?

    One of the best books I read was J.P. Moreland’s Love the Lord Your God with All Your Mind. I couldn’t believe the lack of interest in his ideas when I introduced them to leaders in my church and the association. I am sure you are aware of him; it appears you are one of his students or may be he, yours? Anyway, our pastor left and we got an interim Pastor. What a guy! He is a professor of history. He introduced to our church people I had forgotten about John of the Cross, Ignatius, Augustine, and more. But more importantly, he renewed in my mind to the strong commitment I had: that a church must have close connections to academia. How is a church to know the answers to tough questions unless it has access to resources that spend intense time addressing these questions?

    I accidentally feel into some writings of Peter Kreeft and he gave Catholicism a plausible door opening. What Kreeft did was get me excited about C.S. Lewis. I read Mere Christianity more times than Lewis probably read it. After his Four Loves I was hooked. One of my brothers, who is a judge, also teaches ethics to policemen and he was telling my dad that, “….the guy at the book store said you ought to get these tapes on Lewis’ life…” My brother, who had never heard of Lewis, told my dad and dad told my brother I would give him my arm for the tapes. My brother sent them to me. These tapes were a biography addressing his beliefs as much as the events in his life. And I learned Lewis smelled like a Catholic. One thing about those Catholics: they may fight over the truth, but in matters of faith and morals the final answer rest in the chair of Peter. But for me that was just a cop out like the guy in my class who once said that the Holy Spirit will give you the answer. Why then I asked does The Holy Spirit give my pastor one answer and the Methodist another answer.

    The “Catholic Answer” was so comforting but what about all that Mary, Purgatory, Works, Sacraments, Confessing to a man, etc. And even if the answer was comforting the idea of a Pope was not only lacking rational but it flied in the face of the bible. Through a long process I found what seemed to be what Chesterton said, “A Christian that knows history is condemned to be a Catholic.” And I can’t remember the exact words but Fulton Sheen said something to the effect that there are thousands of people that hate Catholics because they do not know what Catholics believe. I have written much too much on this journey; but I must tell you reconciling with the Church was living hell for me coupled with ecstasy. I have never been more happy and content with such a heavy cross resting on my back. Here is, to the best of my ability, the Catholic answer to one of many misunderstanding of our faith - Salvation.

    First Response:

    John Martignoni’s short answer to “….I’m not sure how else this could be read…”
    John says, “Paul uses the phrase ‘works of the law’ to mean the works of the Old Testament law. In Galatians 3:17, Paul states very specifically that that “the law” came into existence 430 years after Abraham. This is referring specifically to the Mosaic Law. It is NOT referring to “any other ethical or moral standard provided by Christ.” To make this statement is to twist the Scriptures.

    Pastor Jim says, “I’m not sure how else this could be read…” Well, says John, it could be read as Paul meant for it to be read…that the Mosaic Law is no longer in force and if you think you will be saved by adhering to it, you have a problem.

    Romans 2:6, “For He will render to every man according to His works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life.” Hmm…Works seem to be kind of important here, don’t they?

    Also, in John 15:1-6: How is it that the branches become branches of the vine? By something they DID? The answer is absolutely not. The branches became branches of the vine solely by the work of the vine. But, how is it the branches remain branches of the vine? By the fruit they do or do not produce. Works do not justify us, just as faith does not justify us…God’s grace alone justifies. But, we must have faith and works to abide in Christ, to remain branches of the vine, or we, like those branches, will be cut off, whither, and thrown into the fire be burned.

    Second Response: A closer look at the issue of Salvation:

    Are we saved by faith ALONE or do works play an important role? I have heard it said a million times by my protestant friends, “Scripture says we are saved by faith ALONE, yet the Catholic Church teaches we are saved by works.” Is this a false doctrine of WORKS Salvation? They say, “Which do you believe the Catholic Church or Scripture?” Well, I said, I prefer Straw Dogs: Faith alone vs. works; Scripture vs. works. Let’s look at the underlining assumptions and terms: Alone, Faith, Works, and Scripture etc.
    • 1st Assumption: One must believe either the Catholic Church or Scripture
    o It seems non-Catholics believe (or often present) an Either/Or position while Catholics find in this salvation argument a Both/And position. For example non-Catholic’s position is its either Scripture or the Church while Catholics positions is it is both the Scriptures and the Church; Protestants positions is Faith or Works; the Catholic position is both Faith and Works. The protestant position is Either Jesus or Mary and the saints while the Catholic position is both Jesus and Mary and the saints; albeit, Mary and the saints in a much lesser degree.
    o If salvation is consider one’s most important concern. And I would think so; although, I remember Paul had indicated his love for his people so much he would had given his salvation for them. So may be we can not be Universal in this matter but certainly close to Universal. Never the less, if salvation is of the highest priority then finding the truth to solve this problem is monumental. It is obvious one must first determine the source of truth regarding this issue. So where is the best source of truth? The bible?
    o 1 Tim 3:15…….”…..the pillar and bulwark of the truth is the church…” it does not say the bible. In fact, no where does the bible say it is infallible. The church Jesus Christ founded can not be in conflict with the truth. The Catholic Church said the bible was infallible. So if the church is infallible in matters of truth regarding morals and Scripture is also, then the two can not conflict.

    • 2nd Assumption: The Catholic Church teaches a false doctrine of salvation by works alone.
    o The Catholic Church does not now, nor has it ever taught salvation by works! Catholic teaching does not believe one can work their way to heaven. Catholic teaches is regarding salvation can be summarized as such: GRACE/FAITH/WORKS.
    o Doctrine of Grace – God’s free gift of Himself to us
    o The doctrine of grace which is God’s free gift of Himself to us and a doctrine of faith working through love….this is salvation
    o In essence – the Catholic Church teaches we are saved by GRACE ALONE. It also teaches that the human response to God’s grace which is necessary for our salvation must include Faith and Works. BUT the Faith and Works are a result of God’s grace – we can not breath without grace, faith and works preceded by God’s grace, followed by God’s grace and with God’s grace.
    o Most Protestants believe this but the difference is found in their belief that God’s righteousness is imputed to us. We are legally declared righteous through faith alone. Catholics believe: Through Faith and Works that perfect Faith, God doesn’t just declare us righteous He makes us righteous. But Catholic teaching says that works are necessary part of our salvation but not alone. Works are necessary but not satisfactory; Faith is necessary but not satisfactory. Again, the Catholic Church does not teach a doctrine of Salvation by works! See paragraph 161 of the Catechism “….believing is necessary…” see the Council of Trent, “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. We are therefore said to be justified gratuitously (freely) without any merit on our own – because none of these things that precede justification whether faith or works merit the grace of justification.” Justification means salvation. No where no where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church does it say we are saved by works.

    
    • 3rd Assumption: Scripture teaches us we are saved by faith alone.
    o Why is this accepted so readily by Protestants? Before Marin Luther no writing can be found of any church fathers supporting or even hinting of sola fide. No where is it found in the bible. No early church father spoke of it. Luther added the word alone to support his case and subtracted some books of the bible. All these events were reversed. But the impact was made. So why it is so readily accepted. It is simply tradition of the protestant church and several scriptural versus that seem to support this misunderstanding. First, I think one must understand the difference between necessary and satisfactory.
    o It is necessary to have gas in an auto for it to run. If one were in a very dangerous neighborhood and was out of gas, he would be saved by gas if someone were to get the gas to him. It was necessary for his salvation to get that gas. The gas was only ONE necessary condition; this one condition was necessary but not satisfactory.
    o In order to build a home it is necessary to have a roof but the roof alone is not satisfactory. The home needs walls, flooring, windows, and plumbing (unless the owners are from Kentucky). All these necessary items together satisfy the requirement for the home. In the above example it was necessary to have the gas to be saved but it was also necessary to have a steering wheel, and engine that would work etc. The gas was necessary but NOT satisfactory. Look at these versus, wouldn’t it be easy to convince someone who was a lazy thinker that salvation is by faith alone:
    o Gal 3:11
    o Gal 3:24
    o Rom 3:24
    o Rom 10:9-10
    o Acts 13:30-31
    o Jn 3:16
    o Jn 5:13
    o Eph 2:8-9
    o Summary: These versus and several others seem to be very strong supporter of Salvation by Faith Alone. As was mentioned, the Catholic Church believes every word of the bible and believes it is a source for ………………………………………………..But nowhere does it say FAITH ALONE …..See Romans 3:28 this is where Martin Luther added the word “alone” after the word “faith.” He eventually took the word “alone” out. Now look at these versus. How do they compare with the ones above relative to our question?
    o James 2:1 (This verse is here to note that James is talking to those who are believers [saved])
    o James 2:14 “…what does it profit a man….can faith save him…faith…without faith works are dead…” Remember James is talking to believers (“The Saved”). Some Protestants will say that here “Faith” is different than Paul’s faith in Romans and Galatians. They will say James’ Faith is an intellectual faith but not a justifying Faith. Where in the bible does it say that? Why does James use the word “Justified?” James quoted the same Old Testament verse that Paul quoted in the Old Testament, Genesis 15:6. The faith of Genesis 15:6 quoted by Paul is the same faith of Genesis 15:6 quoted by James. See Romans 4:13 and James 2:23.
    o James 2:19-20 ….God will….even the devil believes and (you know the rest)
    o Faith is completed by works
    o James 2:25, 26 Rahab…justified by works. If you read this closely you will see how faith is related to the body and works is related to the Soul. We need both the body and the soul to have life.
    o James 2:24 Works and not by Faith alone….This is the only time you will find in the bible where the word “alone” is followed by faith. We are saved not by Faith alone.
    o 1Cor 13:13 So faith, hope and love abide but the greatest of these is faith – no it says the greatest of these is love. How can one possibly say by faith alone, when such a passage exists?
    o 1 Cor 13:2 If I have …. All the faith so that I can move mountains but have not love I am nothing.
    o Gal 5:6 …………but faith working through love………..
    o 1st John 3:23, 24 (This is a commandment given; it is not optional) Believe and love one another……………..
    o Mt 6:16 (This is very important to take note of) If you forgive others He will forgive you if you do not it is OK because you are saved by faith alone. No it says if you do not forgive others God will not forgive you.
    o What must I do to be saved was asked directly to Jesus and Jesus said Faith alone will do the trick. No he went (as I recall) through six of the Ten Commandments then summarized it by telling the man to turn everything over to Jesus.
    o Gal 3:11
     Rom 2:13
    o Gal 3:24
     James 2:24
    o Rom 3:28
     James 2:20
    o Rom 10: 9,10
     Mt 7:221
    o Acts 16: 30,31
     Mt 19:16,17 Jesus said
    o Jn 3:16
     Heb 12:14
    o 1 John 5:13
     Phil 12:13
    o Eph 2:8,9
     Eph 2:10

    Note: There is something that separates the Saved – They DO something. They ACCEPT – that is a work; a work of acceptance. They BELIEVE – they DO something they believe. To believe to renew ones mind is a proactive job. See J.P. Moreland’s discussion on this in his book Love The Lord Your God with All Your Mind. To ACCEPT and to BELIEVE are works.

    Luke 9:23 he must deny himself DAILY – a work- and it is not a one time thing. DAILY he must DO something. He must
    1. Deny himself
    2. Take up his cross daily
    The way of the cross is Calvary; we must die daily; as we die to self we make room for Jesus – we have to cooperate we have to decide daily to live for Christ. Allowing Jesus to take over – That is how we are saved.

    All the above (90% of it) is from John Martignoni at www.biblechristiansociety.com

    o Here is are some excerpts from David B. Currie’s book “Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic”
    o In referring the subject of Justified James 2:14-26 Currie makes the point that so many apologist make on page 114. “It was only as an adult when I was doing a careful study of James on my own, that I notice that the Greek work used b James is unmistakable. It is the identical term used by all of the New Testament for justification. James said that a man is ‘justified by what he does’.”
    o Currie goes on to say, “This passage alone should put an end to the contention that we are justified by faith alone.
    o Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia puts it this way:
     Justification in the Catholic Tradition comes about by means of faith n Christ, and in a life of good works lived in response to God’s invitation to believe….Catholic Faith held that faith without good works is not sufficient to merit justification, for good works show one’s willingness to cooperate with the initiatives of grace….What is necessary for salvation is a faith that represents itself both externally through acts and internally through faith.
    If that sounds extremely familiar, reread James!
    Most important, this is also the gospel of Jesus. His ideal was that of a life of good works flowing outward from a vibrant inner faith. The parables of the wise and foolish builders (Mt 7:24-27), the two sons (Mt. 21:28-32), the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37), the talents (Mt 25:14-30), the sheep and the goats (Mt 25:31-56), and others all teach a unity of faith and works for salvation. Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, S.J. has made the point that the entire Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on Jesus’ view of justification (justification and righteousness has the same root in Greek): Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 7:21). How much more explicit could Jesus be?

    Finally, I was going to quote from Pocket Handbook of Christians Apologetics by Kreeft and Racelli Chapter 13 page 112, but I am tired. I also wanted to refer you to Scott Hahn, PhD. And numerous references from the Catholic Catechism I was going to provide. I am just too tired and I have to be on the road tomorrow.

    I still must say that I love your web sight. When I taught SS, I told everyone that it is imperative to be able to share the Gospel without going to the bible always as we are in the largest Jewish community outside of Jerusalem – anyway that is what the chamber of commerce says. First, we have to be able to communicate the evidence for a God and that he is a concerned controlling God. Your web sight does a magnificent job in this respect. I am glad you do not sell HR services; you would put me out of business.

    I know this is long. I think it is worthwhile. I get so upset when I know people are missing the Eucharist and the sacraments and don’t have Our Blessed Mother fighting for them.

    God bless you,

    
    David Castlen
    561 267 0684

54. Rayburne says on Jan 20, 2009 @ 10:54 PM:

    Dear David,
    It is not often I share my testimony of God’s saving grace in my life,especially on the internet, but I thought it might be helpful to you, as well as to our discussion.
    
    My spiritual journey, if you want to call it that, of how I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ, crossed different denominational lines. I was raised in the context of the United Church, where I learned about Moses and the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes or Sermon on the Mount, and the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. When I went to university, I drifted away from church . I remember I once wrote a paper in sociology class, in which I viewed life as a process of growing awareness; yet, without any reference to God or eternity (life hereafter). The professor liked it, but I felt there was something missing from the picture of life that I painted in words. I know now what (or Who) it was. It was several teaching appointments and many trials and disappointments later (including broken relationships and one traumatic incident outside a night club in which I was badly beaten up), during which time I felt empty, unfilled and very dissatisfied with life, that I discovered there was a big difference between religion and salvation--which is found only in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. When I had been beaten up outside that nightclub, I had become withdrawn and depressed. I was scared to take another teaching position away from home, especially in an isolated area of coastal Labrador, so when I was offered the position over the phone, I lifted my head to God and asked Him to protect me and lead me to Christians. He did much better than that. He led me to Himself.

    I remember the first day I arrived by ski-plane (Twin Otter) at the wharf in Charlottetown,Labrador, a dear Christian woman (Effie) came out to the plane and invited me to come inside her home and have a cup of tea. While enjoying my cup of tea, she invited me to take a narrow piece of paper from several pieces in a cup, on which were written Bible verses. The verse I picked said, “Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in Him; and he shall bring it to pass” (Psalm 37:4-5). I felt a deep sense that God was with me and that everything would be fine. She invited me out to church that Sunday (Pentecostal). I did not understand the sermon which had something to do with sin and God’s judgment upon it, but I felt I should have gone forward when the pastor invited those in need of prayer to come to the front (altar).
    
    Over the next few months, I felt God’s loving Presence through various situations, the most memorable being the Saturday I worked with the men of the community cutting logs and, when we stopped to have lunch in a tilt (log cabin) , one of the men, who asked God’s blessing upon the food, prayed for me personally to the effect that I would come to know Jesus Christ in a personal relationship as my Lord and Saviour. Specifically, it was in 1979 in Charlottetown, coastal Labrador, while sitting on an empty boat outside the church building, enjoying a beer with my friend Tom, and listening to the Pentecostal Choir singing in loud and joyous unison and praise to a God Who still seemed a long distance from me, that I was enveloped by an overwhelming and glorious Presence, and felt a powerful stirring in my soul. I started to weep and the hand in which I was holding the bottle of beer started to shake uncontrollably until the bottle fell to the ground. I felt strongly that God’s hand was upon me from the moment I had arrived in Charlottetown and that I just had to find out what it was that they (the Christians there) called “salvation” and make it mine before I left Charlottetown to go back to my teaching position.
    
    I immediately returned to the home of my friend, Lindsay, where I had been staying that weekend, as if impelled by some awesome and irresistible force. When I opened the door, a strange man, whom I later learned was a Pastor Beck from Newfoundland, looked me in the face, and said, “I had a burden for someone all the way down here by plane from Newfoundland. Young man, are you saved?” His words brought tears to my eyes and I knew that God had guided my every step, just as that Bible verse said he would, that had led up to this vital moment in my life. When I replied that I was not saved, but knew that I had to make this “salvation’ mine, he opened up the scriptures to me from John 3:14-15: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life, “ and, explaining its meaning to me, he told me not to look to my religion, my denomination, confirmation, baptism, Lord’s Supper, good works, etc. but rather to the Lord Jesus Christ dying for my sins on Calvary’s Cross through eyes of faith, and ask Him alone from the depths of my heart and soul to save me from sin (past, present and future) and to be Lord and Saviour of my life. As I knelt on the floor in the narrow hallway of Lindsay’s home, along with Pastor Beck, and asked Jesus in repentance and faith to be my personal Lord and Saviour from sin, I knew instantly that the heavy burden I had been carrying around all these years was gone, and an inner peace now flooded my soul, as if I had been thoroughly cleansed from within by some miraculous , supernatural power. The Pastor asked me to read Romans 5:1 for assurance: “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." I began to read:” Therefore, having been justified by faith…” when, just as my lips read the word “faith”, a light flashed illuminating the words of the verse, as if it had suddenly become alive and leaped off the page in front of me. It was as if some spiritual floodlight had been activated within the deep and dark recesses of my soul, and had permeated my entire being, enabling me to see and understand spiritually for the first time God’s gracious plan of salvation in Jesus Christ (John 1:12-13; John 3:3; 14:6). I knew that God had confirmed, by His Spirit, through His Word, that I had “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1), forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:14), and eternal life (Romans 6:23) through my faith in Jesus Christ . God’s Word says that we can know that we have (present tense) peace with God(Rom. 5:1), forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:14) and eternal life here and now (1 John 5:13; Romans 6:23; 8:16), not after we die (as many regrettably believe). I (and millions of others) can testify to the truth of God’s Word concerning salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ (nothing added or taken away), no matter what church or denomination says otherwise. I have never lost that peace and joy of knowing Christ has forgiven all my sin and given me eternal life, just as His Word (1 John 5:13; Rom. 6:23) promises. Since then, I have spent 8 years in a Baptist Church,6 years in a Reform Church(RCE), graduated from a Reform Baptist Seminary and presently attend a Baptist Church.
    
    I have met many Christians who came from different religious and ethnic backgrounds (Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Catholics, Protestants,Orthodox,Conservative, Liberal, etc.), as well as from an atheist or agnostic background. They all have one thing in common--namely, they know Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Saviour through faith in His shed blood for their sins and resurrection (Romans 10:9-10, 13). I have not met even one among my many acquaintances who has traced his salvation (and subsequently his assurance of salvation) to baptism, good works, the Mass, or faith in Christ plus the sacraments, good works, the church’s teachings, etc. All had a clear testimony that it was Jesus Christ (and Him alone) Who had saved them from the slavery and depravity of sin, that it was Christ (and HIM alone) who had forgiven all their sin (past, present and future) and that it was Christ (and Him alone); that is,in His perfect righteousness, through His sinless, substitutionary death and glorious resurrection, in which they had completely placed their faith/trust for salvation.

    Yes, like millions of others, my life was wonderfully and marvellously transformed from the inside out. It was just as scripture says in 2 Corinthians 5:17: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (or creation): old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.”
    Unlike before, I now enjoyed going to church, reading God’s Word, being with fellow believers in the Lord. Indeed, I not only had a hunger for God’s Word; I felt that I must share the peace, joy and certain hope I had in Christ with all whom God would send my way.(1 Peter 3:15). Also, I felt the need to forgive all who had hurt me in the past and to ask forgiveness of all whom I had wronged and hurt. I also felt I had to demonstrate in both word and deed the love of Christ to my friends in need when ever the opportunity arose
    My unsaved friends also noticed how radically different my life was, both inside and outside. Yes, I was far from perfect and no better than anyone else, just a poor sinner saved by god’s grace.
    
    Honestly, David, I don’t know what else to say to you. God has stated His glorious plan of salvation so plain in His Word (John 3:16; 14:6; Acts 4:12; 16:31, etc.) that even the most uneducated and wretched sinner can understand it. Millions, myself included, have unashamedly come to Christ in repentance and faith for salvation, and have found Him to be everything Scripture proclaims Him to be: the ALL-SUFFICIENT SAVIOUR from sin and its corrupting power, a FRIEND who sticks closer than a brother, the Logos or Word of God Who became flesh (John 1:14) and died for wretched sinners, such as we are; the Name, to Whom every knee will one day bow and every tongue confess as Lord (Phil. 2:10-11) and in Whom all of God’s promises are “yes” or “Amen” .
    Like I once told my students, David, one can be incurably religious and still be spiritually lost or unsaved. I’m not saying you are, David. But if you have never come to Christ [alone] for salvation; if you honestly don’t know the joy of sins forgiven (past, present and future) and peace with God through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1), and honestly can’t say that I have that assurance of a home in heaven with Christ when I die, then why not cut through all this dark cloud and confusion of religion today and come to the One (Christ) Who is “the light of the world," Who can banish the darkness by His Presence and Truth. Put God’s Word to the test today (Isaiah 1:18). “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. I (and others) pray that you will, David. May the Lord bless thee and keep thee, May He make His face to shine upon thee and give thee peace, Amen.

55. David Castlen says on Jan 21, 2009 @ 07:19 AM:

    Rayburne,
    You have Christ as your partner; how could I expect to help you any more. I hope my lack of literally skills does not taint your blessing. There is only one place where joy can be found and it is in Jesus Christ. Note: I did not say happiness. As Chesterton once wrote, "Every man that ever knocked on a brothle's door was really looking for God" and St. Augustine (as you know) said (the greatest quote outside of the bible), "Thou hast made thee (you) for His pleasure; we will always be restless until we rest in Him."
    Do you think it is possible to get even closer to Jesus? It is, Rayburne. The Mass.

    I too have met all kinds of reliogious people and I find none that appear to have more joy than those I meet at daily mass. But I have a big problem with determining truth via feelings. Feeling prove nothing. If you have studied logic you know that Pragmatism is the source of many a poor conclusion. There is an old Chinesse saying, "When Faith and Feeling keep their eyes on Facts no one falls. But when Faith or Feelings take one of their eys off Fact, all fall except Facts."

    Fact: there are more verses in the bible that says we have to DO something for salvation than faith alone.
    Fact: there is not one verse that says we are saved by faith alone.

    You can have wrong belief (contray to your previous response) and right faith; you can have wrong faith and right belief. The latter catagory finds one doomed.

    Amazingly, in today's Litergy of the Hours the sermon is from Lumen Gensium and addresses this issue of salvation. Get in touch with one of your Catholic friends and have him share it with you.

    You seem like a great guy. I would love to meet you. I am in Boynton Beach Fl and attend St. Theresa's in Willington. If you are ever here, call me.

    Dominus vobis cum

56. John J. Nursing-Student says on Jan 21, 2009 @ 07:48 AM:

    I used to debate a lot back in the day, not so much anymore--In fact, I like to think of the following as more of food for thought than anything, since I have explained the various conter-arguments that might be used to oppose my points

    The main support derived for sola fide is in the following verses:

    4Now to someone who works,
    wages are not considered a gift but
    an obligation. 5However, to someone
    who does not work, but simply believes in the one who justifies the
    ungodly, his faith is credited as
    righteousness. 6Likewise, David also
    speaks of the blessedness of the
    person whom God regards as
    righteous apart from actions:5
    7 “How blessed are those whose
    iniquities are forgiven
    and whose sins are covered!
    8 How blessed is the person whose
    sins
    the Lord will never charge
    against him!”

    (Romans 4:4-8, International Standard Version)
    Notice how these verses do not refer to any sort of Mosaic law at all--Undeniably there are many cases where Paul refers to "works of the Law" that he is talking about the Mosaic law, however, that doesn't seem to be the case here; he mentions Abraham, whose "works" couldn't have possibly involved adherence to the Mosaic law since it didn't exist yet. The problem phrase for Catholics to interpret here is "to someone who does not work, but who believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." In this case, justification sure as heck seems to be legal and instantaneous.

    My understanding of Catholic doctrine (correct if I am wrong) is that there are basically two subcategories of justification: Initial justification (often connected w/ Baptism) in which the sinner is cleaned of all previous sins, and progressive justification (Protestants simply call this sanctification), by which the sinner gradually becomes more holy, hopefully holy enough to avoid all mortal sin. Catholics might say that these verses apply to initial justification, and that progressive justification comes later to play its part in our salvation.

    However, another quote from Paul seems to cast doubt on such a theory:

    6But if this is by
    grace, then it is no longer on the basis
    of actions. Otherwise, grace would no
    longer be grace.

    (Romans 11:6 ISV)
    Here "actions" (or "works," if that word is your cup of tea) are held in opposition to grace (and election) using rather flawless logic. You could break down the reasoning as follows:

    If election is by works, then it is not by grace.
    Election is by grace.
    Therefore, election is not by works.

    Notice that this conclusion follows inescapably from the premises; one must either deny the premises (which one cannot do without undermining Scripture) or else clarify the definition of the terms to escape the apparently Protestant conclusion. The only "out" the Catholic seems to have is to affirm that the word "works" is speaking of adherence to Mosaic law. However, Paul does not mention the Mosaic law in this chapter, and Paul at other times in Romans sometimes mentions "works" without any connection at all to said Mosaic law (e.g. Romans 4:4-8, Romans 9:12, &c.)

    The other "out" is for the Catholic is to argue that we are initially chosen on the basis of grace, but that works play a part only later (in progressive justification). The problem with this is what it means to be "chosen" or "elected." Catholics generally believe that we cannot be 100% sure that we (or anyone else) will make it to Heaven. However, God does know, and scripture teaches us that God has "chosen" certain people to be among the saved. Fine and dandy. But if God only chose people based on his foreknowledge that they would trust Him in faith (initial justification) AND that they would perservere in good works and avoid mortal sin (progressive justification), then it seems as if one is trying to sneak works in through a back door that has already been slammed shut.

    Remember, it is the Apostle Paul who has put grace and works in opposition. In this verse, Paul is not holding justification and works in opposition to each other, but is holding "election" and "works" in opposition to each other--since whom God elects, He elects out of His omniscience, He knows every work we will ever do at any future time; a plain reading of Paul's writing seems to indicate that God is not basing his election on any of those works.

    Another way out of this dilemma is for the Catholic to argue that "election" simply means something "chosen for infusion of initial baptismal cleansing/grace" and that individuals who are "chosen" or "elected" can later fall away due to disobedience and be among the lost. To see whether or not this is plausible, I invite the reader to use an online Bible search tool (such as biblegateway.com) to search Paul's epistles for "election" or "elected" or "chosen" and to see what he means by those terms.

    I have tried to be as objective as possible in this analysis and I hope it furthers the discussion. God bless us, everyone.

57. Rayburne says on Jan 21, 2009 @ 12:58 PM:

    I don’t think there is any dilemma with regards to the authority of scripture, at least as far as the Bible is concerned. No scripture that teaches the bible is the authority? 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All inspiration is inspired by God…” Notice, David, it said, “All scripture is inspired by God (the source of inspiration), not the Catholic Church. Divine inspiration (the source or origin of scripture) establishes the authority of scripture, not the church (or some church council). In other words, scripture claims to be itself inspired and therefore authoritative. I could go on, but I don’t see the point. I have discussed sufficiently “faith alone” and “Justification by faith” from a biblical perspective, as well as how justification relates to sanctification. Self-denial, taking up one’s cross daily, working out one’s salvation with fear and trembling, etc. are aspects of sanctification and are clearly discussed in scripture within that context. If you want to take them out of context, as you have done with other doctrines, then you can stack up your theological deck of cards anyway you like. The same goes for reading into scripture (eisegesis, not exegesis) what Catholic theologians and others do not find in scripture (I.e. right belief and wrong faith). No matter what I say, I’m sure you will have an answer that reflects your Catholic teaching. I have to agree with Mike that this discussion, though I’ve enjoyed it, does not clarify what the Pope means by “justification by faith,” as far as scripture is concerned., and that no matter how much we tell our catholic friends, as far as salvation goes, “to repent and trust in the shed blood of Christ for their sins,” there will always be something missing according to the church. God bless.

58. David Castlen says on Jan 21, 2009 @ 02:13 PM:

    Rayburne:
    "Inspired" it does not say "infallible" it does not say "the only source of truth" and it doesn't say whi Where is the pillar and foundation of truth then? 1 Timothy 3:15 "...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." It is the Church that is the pillar and foundation, the place to go for the truth. When it comes to matters of faith and morals, the church the Catholic church is the place to go. Protestants are repulsed by the idea that there are people who do infallible things; albeit, Moses did an infallible thing in writing The Torah. Add to the list David, John, Matthew, Peter etc. No where will you find in the bible solo scriptura; in fact, no where in history until 1520 +/- will you find it taught.

    You will hear arguement of "hidden churches" and "invisible churches" "perspicuous self interpretation" none of which is found in the Bible or the Fathers of the Church. And they, these arguments, are are circular.

    2 Peter 1:20 "First of all, you must understand this,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation (see 2 Peter 3:15-16
    Nehemiah 8:8 "And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading (see Mark 4:33-34
    Acts 8:27-31 "And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jersulem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip (my comment: Philip was given the infallible power of interpretation as was and is all of the magistrium) 'Go up and join the chariot' So Philip.....(and you know the rrest.

    Now there are a lot of protestants that do not believ some things that you do; i.e., your interpretation of the bible, what makes your interpretation correct and the other's wrong. Especially if the Holy Spirit is helping both of you to interrupt it.

    God bless, continue to stay close to Christ as you are

    Donna nobis pacem

59. David Castlen says on Jan 21, 2009 @ 02:13 PM:

    Rayburne:
    "Inspired" it does not say "infallible" it does not say "the only source of truth" and it doesn't say whi Where is the pillar and foundation of truth then? 1 Timothy 3:15 "...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." It is the Church that is the pillar and foundation, the place to go for the truth. When it comes to matters of faith and morals, the church the Catholic church is the place to go. Protestants are repulsed by the idea that there are people who do infallible things; albeit, Moses did an infallible thing in writing The Torah. Add to the list David, John, Matthew, Peter etc. No where will you find in the bible solo scriptura; in fact, no where in history until 1520 +/- will you find it taught.

    You will hear arguement of "hidden churches" and "invisible churches" "perspicuous self interpretation" none of which is found in the Bible or the Fathers of the Church. And they, these arguments, are are circular.

    2 Peter 1:20 "First of all, you must understand this,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation (see 2 Peter 3:15-16
    Nehemiah 8:8 "And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading (see Mark 4:33-34
    Acts 8:27-31 "And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jersulem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip (my comment: Philip was given the infallible power of interpretation as was and is all of the magistrium) 'Go up and join the chariot' So Philip.....(and you know the rrest.

    Now there are a lot of protestants that do not believ some things that you do; i.e., your interpretation of the bible, what makes your interpretation correct and the other's wrong. Especially if the Holy Spirit is helping both of you to interrupt it.

    God bless, continue to stay close to Christ as you are

    Donna nobis pacem

60. Rayburne. says on Jan 21, 2009 @ 05:16 PM:

    David, I just explained that divine inspiration establishes the authority of scripture, according to 2 Timothy 3:16. It does not have to use the words "infallible" or "authority" specificially because if the the Bible explicitly states that its source of inspiration is God, then it has already established its authority. Now, in the case of the Ethiopian enuch,an unbeliever, Phillip was simply doing what any believer, who is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, has the ability or power to do; namely, to help that unbeliever understand the gospel or scripture. Paul, speaking to believers at Corinth ("brethren," chapter 2, verse 1) explains, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us" (1 Corinth. 2:12). Note, the result or evidence of having received the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things..of god. In other words, believers, who have regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of God,have the spiritual ability and power to know (understand) the things of God (including the scriptures).Contrast this, on the other hand, with what Paul says, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, about the natural or unregenerate man/woman, without the Spirit of God, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Acts 17:11 informs us that the early Christians (note, they were believers indwelt by the Spirit of God) "were more noble than those at Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Of course, these believers had to be taught (no one is denying that), but note carefully, as this verse makes clear, that when they were taught, they went straight to the scriptures (the source of all inspiration and authority) to verify that what was taught was according to scripture. That is a world of difference from having some church hierarchy or leaders teach what is clearly contradictory to God's Word. And please, need I go into the many instances where catholic teaching clearly contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture? (i.e 1 Timothy 2:5:the one mediator bewteen God and man, the man Christ Jesus versus Mary, co-mediatress with Jesus Christ). 2 Timothy 2:15 admonishes believers to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Note carefully that it is the responsibility of believers not only to study the scriptures for themselves, but also to "rightly divide the word of truth." In other words, believers indwelt by the Spirit of God ,have the ability (again not ruling out the need for good teachers knowledgeable of the ancient Greek, Hebrew and sound biblical exegesis)but more importantly, they have that freedom or liberty in Christ to "rightly divide the word of truth" for themselves, and to not allow anyone (be it a church hierarchy or magisterium) to bind their conscience f when it comes to the meaning of scripture.
    As for emotion,David, there is nothing wrong with emotion, unless it is emotion just for emotion's sake. People who encounter the Risen Christ in salvation do get emotional. All experience must be carefully weighed in the crucible of God's Word, of course, which is exactly what scripture says.
    
    Contrary to popular belief, Matthew 16:18 does not say the church is built on Peter, as anyone who has studied Greek can verify by sound,grammatical, historical, biblical exegesis of this verse, especially the meaning of "That thou art Peter (name means little rock or little stone) and "upon this rock". Where is the foundation, then, according to scripture? 1 Corinthians 3:11 states, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Paul is still adressing believers or "brethren" (1 Corinth 3:1) in the church at Corinth. In verse 9 in the same context, he says, "For we are labourers together with God." Now, I have a few questions for you to answer:
    
    (1)Are you sure of going to heaven when you die? Catholic teaching states that anyone who claims to have the assurance of salvation through God's power or mercy has committed the sin of presumption (2092).

    (2) Do you know waht God's righteous justice demands for "all" sin? (Hell)."For whsoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10). Catholic teaching states venial sins do not bring death to the soul or eternal punishment (1472).

    (3).Do you believe puratory purifies you of sin? This belief denies the sufficiency of the once for all time, Sacrifice of the sinless Son of God in our place for our sin on Calvary's Cross (1473)See Hebrews 10:10-12.

61. Mike says on Jan 21, 2009 @ 09:17 PM:

    Thanks, David for your patience in trying to help us understand. You probably feel under siege, but you are handling this with tremendous grace (I think the word is appropriate), and I admire you for it.

    I really enjoyed the memories of your father. My dad too was a great example and encouragement to me. He made us go to Church every Sunday, and the habit stuck with me making it really easy to be faithful to church when I finally trusted in Christ for myself.

    First, be careful of equivocating on the word “Catholic.” “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” is not the same thing, and it tricks many when the word is confounded. The Reformers were “Catholic” and appealed to Augustine and the other Catholic Church Fathers to support their positions. Yes, history does support the “Catholic” position, but history also shows that the “Roman Catholic” Church has moved a long way from the apostolic tradition revealed in the Bible, and then confirmed in the early Councils. Protestants accept the formulations of the early councils, though they are uncomfortable with the term “Catholic” because of the distortion of the word when the adjective is employed.

    Second, no one disagrees here that a person who is justified by faith will be changed and do good works. We were saved for this very purpose. How can anyone claim to have received such a great Savior and then not respond with efforts that try to please Him? Faith affects behavior; God transforms our very nature through it. Luther would approve, and not just in words, his whole life was dedicated to God, and Rayburne movingly shared his own contemporary experience with us. A justified sinner becomes a sanctified lover of God, and will show it.

    Now, since Trent agrees that faith is essential to justification which is by grace alone, and since “no where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church does it say we are saved by works;” why then do we have to join the Roman Catholic Church to be saved? And after joining, what works and ceremonies do we have to do to ensure our justification remains valid?

    I would really like to pin this down because I have many good friends and relatives in the Roman Catholic Church that I am very concerned about. It grieves me that they are unaware that it is a transforming faith in Christ crucified that justifies them (as confirmed by Trent and the catechism), and not their baby baptism, attendance at Mass each week, confirmation, the odd act of confession, and their imagined good works.

    Thanks again, David, for your patience in trying to clarify this for us.

62. David Castlen says on Jan 22, 2009 @ 06:10 AM:

    Mike and Rayburne:
    I have been doing my early morning prep and just read your reponses. I am excited about responding. I can not now as time dictates I address my business (2 Thes 3:10-13). But I must respond to Mike's "Why then do we have to join the Roman Catholic Churchh to be saved?"

    Did you know there was a priest excumunicated for teaching that one has to be a Catholic to get to heaven. Rome stayed on him a long time and finnally had to act. You do not have to be a Catholic to be saved!!!!!!!!!

    When we get to heaven we will teach you guys how to carve and paint (sorry Shaeffer) and sing the great formal songs, you guys will teach us how to sing naturally.

    Dominus vobis cum

63. David Castlen says on Jan 22, 2009 @ 07:47 AM:

    Rayburne this is the best explanation I know of regarding the Pope. It is from what many people consider today's foremost Catholic Apologist, Scott Hahn:

    Scott Hahn’s address regarding The Pope :
    http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online
    Many people think that Vatican II's primary vision of the Church as a communion was summarized in the phrase, "The People of God," but the Old Testament roots for that phrase, "People of God," "am' Yahweh" actually has as its primary meaning, "Family of God." That term "people," am' literally denotes kinship, so it could be translated "kinsmen" or "Family of God," and that's how most Old Testament scholars translate it. So when we look at the Pope, as we will this morning, we are going to be looking at him, not as some tyrant, not as some authoritarian "know-it-all" and not as some magician who can just kind of concoct a new revelation to satisfy all parties, or anything like that. We are going to be looking at a father figure that Christ has established over the family that He has purchased with His own blood.
    Now, there are many misconceptions that people have. They sometimes think that the teaching of the Church is that the Pope is infallible; therefore, he can't sin. That's nonsense, although the present Pontiff goes to confession, I understand, at least once a week. He's got to have something to confess for it to be a valid sacrament administered to him. Others think that he always says the best thing at the right time. No, the Church has never insisted upon the fact that the Pope will always say the best thing at the right time. Rather, the teaching of the Church would allow for the Pope perhaps to postpone out of cowardice, a right thing. Or when he says the truth, when he teaches the truth, he might do so in a way that includes an ambiguity.
    So we are responsible as Catholics to understand, not only what the Church teaches, but what the Church doesn't teach to help clear up these misconceptions. The Church teaches in a simple summary that the Holy Father, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the successor to Peter and the Vicar of Christ, when he speaks as the universal teacher from the Chair of Peter in defining faith and morals does so with an infallible charism or an infallible gift through the Holy Spirit so that we can give to him the full assent of our intellect and our will, and we can hear the voice of Christ coming to us through the voice of the Pope when he is speaking in this capacity.
    Now we are going to flush off on the meanings of this as time goes on, but there are three basic issues or problems. First of all, can we prove Papal Primacy, that is, that the Pope is not just the first among equals but that he has a certain primacy, a unique supremacy in relation to all of the Bishops. We have to begin by showing that Jesus conferred this gift upon Peter. Then secondly, we have to establish the doctrine of Papal succession. If we can prove from the Bible that Peter was granted by Jesus a certain primacy, that doesn't go far enough. We then have to go on to establish Papal succession; that is, Peter had successors to whom would be entrusted the same gift or charism. Then thirdly, we have to establish evidence for Papal infallibility, that is that God grants a gift to the successors of Peter for them, not to give new revelations. The Church insists that no Popes have ever given new revelation. Revelation has been, once and for all deposited by Christ through His Apostles and with the death of the last Apostle came the close of all public revelation. The Popes, in a sense are given the task of preserving and of transmitting, explaining and enforcing that revelation, but not giving new revelation. So that third doctrine is the doctrine of Papal infallibility, that when they transmit, when they explain, when they enforce it, they are granted a charism or a special spiritual gift preserving them from error.
    Infallibility, in a sense, is a negative gift. It doesn't mean he always says the right thing, it's always the right time; but that when he speaks with the authority that Christ gives to him, we have this Divine guarantee, because Christ promises that "I will build my Church." The Church of Christ is not a human institution first and foremost. Jesus identifies it as His own. "My church" and the institution and edification and up-building of the Church Jesus claims for himself, "I will build my Church." So, whatever instruments that Jesus chooses to use, ultimately are going to be under His control and He is going to be using them with this ultimate intention in mind, of building His Church, of governing His family and thus bringing about the guarantee that He imparts in Matthew 16, as we will see, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and will not prevail against the Rock which is Peter and the Popes who are in the line of succession with Peter.
    Now, I have just given to you a very quick, bird's-eye view of all that we have to do. Now I have to confess from the bottom of my heart and with total sincerity that we are not going to be able to do an adequate job this morning. This is just too much! If I talk as rapidly as I possibly could and try to get everything across and go through all the others and everything else, I still couldn't get through 20 percent of it. So I'm not going to talk your ears off. I'm not going to try to plow through all of this and take three or four hours. Instead I'm going to try to focus upon the mountain peaks, the real highlights, so that you can see from scripture and from history and from the Church, the key ideas that we need to use and present and share as evidence and support for our belief and our practice as Catholics.
    We are going to first and primarily look at scripture. We are also going to look at the historical development of the Church's understanding and then, finally, we are going to focus on some of the Church's teachings relative to the Pope and his authority. Before I go on, having given you this qualification, I think I need to recommend some sources for your study over, above and beyond our time this morning.
    First of all, I would like to recommend a book entitled, Catholicism and Fundamentalism and the Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians. It's written by Karl Keating, the founder and director of "Catholic Answers" in San Diego. You may also wish to write him for a catalog of other materials that Catholic Answers publishes, but this book is a very adequate treatment of all of the common objections against the Catholic faith, many of them we are not going to be able to cover this week, and how, from scripture and also Church history, we can answer these in a very convincing and persuasive way.
    The second book that I recommend is by Dr. Alan Schreck. It's entitled, Catholic and Christian, an Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs. This is a very positive and constructive, I'd say, pastoral presentation of the Biblical evidence and historical reasons for the Catholic beliefs. This is not directed as much against Fundamentalists as perhaps Evangelical Protestants and it really helps them a great deal.
    There are two other books written by one of the greatest philosophers of our century, Stanley Jaki. The first one is on my right, And on This Rock, the Witness of One Land and Two Covenants. He shows the geographical, historical and Biblical background for what Jesus intended to say when He renamed Simon, "Rock" or Peter. A very interesting book. Then, this other book of his, The Keys of the Kingdom, a Tool's Witness to Truth focuses upon, not the Rock so much, but the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter and his successors. These two are full of some of the most valuable information, interesting data, that you will come across.
    At a more popular level and something you can read in ten or fifteen minutes, Catholic Answers puts out two little brochures, two little tracts or pamphlets. One is entitled, Papal Infallibility and the other one is entitled, Peter and the Papacy, and you could write Catholic Answers for that. And lastly, if you will permit me, I'll recommend a tape that I made sitting at a desk about a year ago, up in my study in Jolliet, Illinois, before we moved to Steubenville. It's entitled, "Peter and the Papacy" and in this tape I focus primarily on Matthew 16, verses 17 through 19. I focus upon three aspects that we are going to begin with this morning: the Rock, the keys and the guarantee of Jesus that the gates of hell will not prevail.
    Papal Primacy and Succession
    Now that's going to be our starting point and I'm going to take the liberty here, if you will permit me, of summarizing what I've said on that tape - not because I assume you have listened to the tape or you will, but because you can, if you are so interested. And I don't want to go into an hour's worth of detail just on one passage when there are other important passages to cover as well. But those three ideas are closely associated with the very important passage that we find in the first gospel, the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 16, verses 17 through 19.
    Let me read that passage and then I will back up and consider those three aspects. Let's drop back to verse 13, "Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, 'Who do men say that the Son of Man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets'." Rather impressive testimony because these people constitute the Old Testament Hall of Fame of Saints, here. "He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?'" And as is characteristic throughout Matthew's gospel, Peter steps forward, or I should say, speaks up. Peter is the only one to walk on water. Peter is the one who often speaks up, representative of the twelve disciples. Verse 16, "Peter replied, 'You are the Christ,' -- the Christos, the Anointed One in Greek or the Messiah in Hebrew, 'the Son of the Living God. You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven, and I tell you, you are Peter (Petra) and on this Rock (Petros), I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.'" And then He strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ.
    Now, let me just get a little personal here. Six or seven years ago, a couple years before I became a Catholic, I had been studying the doctrine of the Covenant. I came to an understanding of the Covenant as a family, and with this insight I began to discover all kinds of exciting truths, novel innovations, new discoveries that I thought were really undiscovered before. Then as I began to dig deeper into these libraries, I noticed that time and time again, Catholic scholars -- I mean not just recently but going all the way back to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th Centuries, in the Middle Ages -- the saints and the Doctors of the Church were consistently coming up with all of my brand new discoveries and teaching them with a kind of ho-hum attitude like, "You all know such and such."
    That really, at first it provoked me. Then it scared me and then it led me to dig deeper and deeper into Catholic sources to see how many of my discoveries they may have found in practically every one of them, except the ones that were false. The Pope, though, was a different matter. For me, the idea of a Pope who claims primacy and succession and infallibility was a presumption, an arrogant presumption that no man should make.
    But then one day, as I was working through the Gospel of Matthew, because that stresses, that gospel builds on the Old Testament more than any other and especially the idea of David's kingdom. That really seems to be the central thrust of Matthew's gospel, that Jesus is the Son of David and He is establishing the Kingdom of David. That's how Matthew introduces Jesus. He is the only one of the four gospel writers who traces His genealogy right back to David, and he says, "Jesus, the Son of David" at the very start of Matthew. That's a common and prominent theme throughout the gospel.
    So I wanted to dig deep and see what I found in this particular passage, and on the basis of that discovery, or I should say, on the basis of that study, I made some discoveries. First of all, I discovered that when you read in verse 17, "Jesus answered, 'And blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church,' " I discovered that all the evidence points to the fact that Peter is the "rock."
    Now you might say, "That's as plain as the nose on your face. What's the excitement of that discovery?" Well, non-Catholics frequently claim that it's Peter's faith that Jesus is speaking of, or Peter's confession that Jesus is speaking of when He says, "this rock." Or other Protestants object and say, "No, Jesus says, 'And you are petros.'" You are petros, you are rock, and on this petra, the Greek word for large rock, "I will build my Church." So some Protestants object to the Catholic view and say, "What Jesus is really saying is. 'You're a little pebble and on this rock, namely Christ, the Rock, (1 Corinthians, 10:4 and so on) I will build my Church.'"
    Now the closer I studied the more I realized that those positions were untenable, simply untenable. And I'm going to share in a few minutes the fact that most conservative anti-Catholic Protestant scholars today will admit that readily and candidly. The more I dug, the more I found that the evidence pointed to the fact that Jesus was speaking of Peter. Peter is the Rock. Peter just said, "You are the Christos," so Jesus says, "You are the Petros." There is a little parallelism there. "You are the Son of the Living God" and "You are the son of Jonah, Simon Bar-Jonah; you are the Petros."
    Now people could say, "Wait a second. There is a distinction in the Greek language between petros," Peter's name and petra. Petros can mean stone, whereas petra can often mean "big rock." The problem with that is two-fold. First of all, Jesus probably didn't speak Greek when He was with the disciples. I mean that is held by 99.9 percent of all scholars. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that Jesus in His normal conversations spoke Greek. What's almost certain is that He spoke Aramaic and in the Aramaic there is only one word that could possibly be used and Kouman and other scholars have pointed to the fact that if Jesus spoke Aramaic, He only could have said, "You are Cephus, and on this Cephus I build my Church." So given our knowledge of the Aramaic language, there is no possibility for Jesus to have made the distinction between "little stone" and "big rock." The Aramaic language doesn't allow it.
    Well, somebody could say, "The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to use two different words. Well, that's true, because "petra" is the word in Greek that is normally used for "large rock," but - I should say petra is the Greek word that means "large rock" but it's in the feminine form. In other words, the gender of this Greek word, petra, large rock, is feminine. You do not apply a feminine form of the word in order to name a male. You adopt it by giving the masculine form. In other words what Matthew was doing, guided by the Holy Spirit, is something that was rather obvious and practically necessary. That was to take the Greek from Jesus' saying and start by saying, "I will build my Church on this massive stone, this 'petra' in the feminine but then to show that Peter gets the name, "Rock" in its proper masculine form.
    You wouldn't name him Josephine or Rockina or, you know, something like that. You give him the masculine form of the word. I should also add that there is absolutely no archeological evidence from antiquity for anybody having been named Peter before Simon. In other words, Jesus was taking a word that had never been used as far as all the many records we have are concerned, never was used to designate an individual person and Jesus gives that name, gives that word to Simon.
    Again, I suggest the fact that Simon is the Rock. I should say a few things along these lines because I mentioned that I have these Protestant quotes. I have note cards that I actually put together when I was preparing a paper for a graduate seminar on the subject. I was still a Protestant minister, and I was taking a graduate seminar on the Gospel of Matthew and the professor was a Protestant. He was a Lutheran and he knew what I wanted to do for my project and so I presented this paper, "Peter and the Keys" and I worked at it because I knew that he might not be open to my conclusions, that I knew what my conclusions were going to be at the end of my research. They were rather Catholic, neither Presbyterian nor Lutheran.
    So, I worked and worked and I put these notecards together and when I made the presentation -- I should add, this was a very interesting experience because all the other students who presented papers, the professor encouraged the rest of the students to interact with the presenter. And he seldom, if ever asked questions in interacting. He wanted the students to get involved. But when it came to presenting a 30-page paper presenting the evidence that Peter is the Rock and that the keys denote succession and that the Catholic position is right, not one student spoke up for the entire two and one-half hour seminar. He did all the talking and we even went over. I ended up leaving the classroom like forty-five minutes after the seminar was supposed to end. It was the most grueling cross- examination I'd ever undergone, and I might add, I had intestinal digestive problems for about a week afterwards because of how nerve- wracking it was.
    But at the end of the whole ordeal he said, "I think your paper is flawless. The only fault that I found is that you have the middle initial on one person's name in one of your footnotes wrong!" He said, "I think your arguments are persuasive, too. I'm just grateful that I don't think that Matthew is historically reliable, so I don't have to follow the conclusions." I'm glad you said that, you know, and not me.
    Protestants are often ready to admit the fact that Peter is the Rock and that the keys of succession are given to him to imply an office that will be filled by successors. For instance, one of the top evangelical New Testament scholars in the world, R.T. France says this in his commentary on Matthew, "Verses 17 through 19 are addressed to Peter and have been regarded by some as a late addition to support an early claim to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Whether or not they give any such support, there is no textual evidence for their addition to the gospel after its original composition, and the strongly Semitic or Jewish character of the language throughout these verses point to a relatively early origin in a Palestinian environment." What is France saying? Well, many scholars have suggested that Jesus could not have given this gift to Peter. Jesus could not have given this original saying. Why? Because many scholars don't believe that Jesus foresaw the building of the Church. They think that all of these sayings of Jesus concerning the Church were added later by the Church to support whatever had happened to the Church.
    Dr. France says, "That's just not tenable." When you study this you realize that all of the evidence in the text shows that this is one of the original sayings of Jesus. He goes on to say, "Jesus' beatitude of Peter or His blessing is given to Peter alone. The other disciples may have shared his insight but Peter, characteristically expressed it. Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples' group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader." He goes on to talk about how Peter is referenced to the Rock. France says, "It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church."
    This is a non-Catholic. This is an Evangelical Protestant who has absolutely no interest in supporting the Church's claims but he says, "The term Peter, Rock, points to Simon and not his character because he could be very unstable, but rather his official function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church. The word-play is unmistakable." He says, "It is only Protestant over-reaction to the Roman Catholic claim, of course, which has no foundation in the text, that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later Bishops of Rome." In other words France is saying, "We can't apply this to the Popes, the later Bishops of Rome." I'll overthrow that opinion in a few minutes, I think, but France is very candid in saying, "Look, it's only because we Protestants have over-reacted to the Catholic Church that we are not frank and sincere in admitting the fact that Peter is the Rock. He is the foundation stone upon which Jesus is going to build the Church."
    One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this -- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti- Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." We will see."
    Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."
    Now let's just stop here and ask, "What is he talking about?" I think it's simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. This, for me, was the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of all. Let's go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom.
    By the way, I do not find hardly any Catholic defenders of the faith these days with awareness of this particular point. This was the point above all points for me. It was the point that the defenders of the Catholic faith in the 16th and 17th Centuries were very aware of, but for some reason amnesia has set in upon many defenders and interpreters not aware of how crucial this particular passage is. In Isaiah 22 beginning back in verses 19 and 20, we have some very interesting background. This is where Jesus goes for a quotation to cite this passage.
    What's happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, "I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David."
    Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It's a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, "I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father's house." Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.
    Now, what is going on here? I'll just summarize it in rather simple terms. Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Like Margaret Thatcher is the Prime Minister, so there are other ministers under the Queen in Great Britain. Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that's why Eliakim is called to fill it.
    Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister's position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it's the key of David; it's the House of David.
    Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I'll read the quote. Albright says, "In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying." Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it's undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, "The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel." In other words, the Prime Minister's office.
    Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession. When I discovered that, it was like the blinders fell off. Within a few weeks I had gotten together with the leading Protestant theologians in the world, one of the most reputable anti- Catholic Protestant theologians and spent ten hours with him and then in a Mercedes we drove two hours and I presented this case, and his only comment was, "That's clever." But he said, "You don't have to follow the Pope because of that." I said, "Why not?" And he said, "Well, I'm going to have to think about it." He said, "I've never heard that argument before." And I said, "It' s one of the basic arguments that Cajeton used against the Protestants in the 16th Century and Cajeton was one of the most well-known defenders of the Catholic faith and you've never heard of him before?" I said, "I had never heard of it before until I discovered it on my own and then found it in all these other people." And he said, "That's clever." Clever, perhaps. True, definitely; enlightening, illuminating, very interesting.
    He goes on to say some other things. "It is of considerable importance," Albright says, "that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys."
    Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king's cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say. He has, in himself, the authority of the court of final appeal and even Protestants can see this.
    In fact, I found this quotation in Martin Luther from 1530, years after he had left the Church, "Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.'" This is Jesus talking, "'Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office.'" Luther even saw it, "'They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.'" The only thing that Luther won't admit is that there was succession after Peter died, which is exactly what the keys denote, given their Old Testament background.
    One of the greatest reformed Biblical scholars of this century, Herman Liderboss, a European scholar, in his Matthew commentary says, this is going back. I should have read this a few minutes ago. But he says, "The slight difference between these two words, petra and petros, has no special importance. The most likely explanation for the change from petros, Peter, masculine, to petra is that petra was the normal word for rock, because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name; however, Simon was not called Petra but Petros. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words "on this rock," petra, indeed, refer to Peter. Because of the revelation he had received and the confession it had motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future Church."
    One of the top Evangelical, non-Catholic scholars in America, Professor Donald Carson of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in his book, God With Us, Themes from Matthew says, "Jesus was simply using a pun to say that Peter is the rock on which Jesus would build His Church." Now Dr. Carson is no Catholic Apologist. He would try to set up arguments against the Catholic faith, I'm sure; but he's sincere and, I think, also respectable as a scholar in insisting upon the obvious evidence in the conclusions.
    This has led an Evangelical Protestant German scholar, Gerhardt Meier, who wrote a famous book that conservative Protestants frequently refer to, "The End of the Historical Critical Method". In his article, "The Church and the Gospel of Matthew," Gerhardt Meier says on pages 58 through 60, "Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person." This is a Protestant speaking now. "On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree," and he names several Protestant theologians from the liberal to the conservative side. "Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins." Professor Gerhardt Meier is a Protestant with no interest in supporting the Catholic claim but, as an honest scholar, admits that Peter is the one that Jesus is giving His power to. "Peter is the rock and the keys signify, not only disciplinary power to teach, but even to absolve sins. With all due respect to the Protestant Reformers, we must admit that the promise in Matthew 16-18 is directed to Peter and not to a Peter-like faith. As Evangelical theologians, especially, we ought to look at ourselves dispassionately and acknowledge that we often tend unjustifiably toward an individualistic conception of faith. To recognize the authenticity of Matthew 16:17 and following demands that we develop a Biblically based ecclesiology or doctrine of the church."
    Gerhardt Meier is showing, as an honest scholar, that the church which Jesus speaks of is a universal church, not just a local congregation, another favorite ploy of anti-Catholic apologists. He says, "No, the church He's talking about is the one, holy, Catholic Church, the universal church and the rock on which it will be built is Peter, not Peter's confession and the keys that Jesus gives to Peter are keys not only to teach but even to absolve sins." He's not saying, "We all should become Catholics, but what we should honestly do is to grant the Catholics the point. Because if we are honest in interpreting the Bible, we have to admit these conclusions."
    Another Lutheran professor, a professor of scripture and theology at Concordia Seminary in Hong Kong, Torg Forberg wrote an article entitled, "Peter, High Priest of the New Covenant." Forberg insists that Jesus is the ultimate High Priest in the New Testament, but he says, "Peter is presented as some kind of successor to the High Priest in tradition used by the final redactorate, Matthew 16:13-19. Peter stands out as a kind of chief Rabbi who binds and looses in the sense of declaring something to be forbidden or permitted. Peter is looked upon as a counterpart to the High Priest. He is the highest representative for the people of God." This is Protestant testimony.
    Elsewhere I found in The Interpreter's Bible, "The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus." The person who wrote this section in the Interpreter's Bible is saying, "I don't think personally that Jesus ever said these words. How could Jesus give to the Apostles prerogatives that are His own?" Well, the Church has always said that Jesus said this and what Jesus is giving is His own grace, His own power and His own authority to His Apostles.
    Now Bultmann, one of the most notorious and well-known Protestant Biblical scholars of the century argues that it is impossible to regard Matthew 16 as an authentic saying of Jesus. He said, "How could He have envisioned the future development of an organized congregation of followers and appointed for them Peter as possessor of the power to teach and to discipline?" I have several other quotations here. I won't go through them all, but let me just summarize with a quotation from an English Protestant scholar, J.N.D. Kelly in his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes. He says, "The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years."
    We are reaching a point these days in the scholarly dialogue that is exciting, where some of the most essential points are now being admitted and acknowledged by both sides. But I must say, as I listen to tapes that are made of debates that are held across the country through these last few years, there are still many Protestants, or I should say non-Catholics, out there who are so vehemently opposed to the Catholic Church, they will still go back to the over-reaction of the Protestants, the anti-Catholic misinterpretations and use them.
    A good friend of mine was in a recent debate with a Protestant minister who was using it right and left, even after the debates. My friend went up to him and said, "Do you think, even though you are arguing that Peter isn't the Rock because you were quoting this and that and the other thing, do you think that Peter is the Rock?" And the anti-Catholic debater said, "Of course I do!" Although he had argued against that position, he held it himself. He just wanted to undermine the Catholic teaching. There is a broad consensus emerging, and it's a strong and sure foundation that we can build on in discussions and dialogues. I don't want to overdo it, but I think it is a very, very important point.
    Common Objections to Papal Infallibility
    Now, what I would like to do at this point is to move beyond Matthew 16 and consider some other factors that play into this as well. First, let me just throw out some objections that may come into your mind. How could a human be infallible? Isn't infallibility a prerogative of God alone? Then as Catholics I think we should admit Mary who never sinned, although we never say that the infallible Popes never sin. They sin. They are not impeccable; they are infallible As persons, they sin. As persons, they make mistakes. As persons, they might hold the wrong opinion inside their own minds; but Christ prevents them, through the Holy Spirit in His omnipotent love, from ever sitting down in the Chair of Peter and teaching the wrong opinions as Catholic beliefs.
    It's ultimately the infallibility of Christ that is the foundation for whatever we ascribe to the Popes. Now somebody could say, "Infallible? Teaching nothing but truth? To err is human, to forgive divine. You know we don't need infallibility. We can't have it. It isn't human." Well, I would say this; two things. First of all, if I were to sit down and write a textbook in say Algebra, and we got a thousand proof readers from across the world and they all went through it with a fine tooth comb, and after years they didn't find a single mistake, would you have to conclude this was not written by a man but by God? There are no mistakes. No, of course not. I mean to err is human, but to be human is not to err only and always, continually. We can make mistakes, but we don't have to! And God can prevent us from doing so.
    You hear Protestants says sometimes, like I always used to say, "You know this idea of infallibility just doesn't belong to humans. But then you think about it another minute. Non-Catholic Christians rarely admit that the Bible is infallible because the Biblical authors were given the gift of infallibility: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude -- all of them wrote infallible truth. In fact, the Bible Christians insist that the Bible alone is our authority because the Bible is infallible.
    Well, ask them. If God was capable of using thousands of sinners to infallibly communicate infallible truth, then, so that the Church could see it as the truth, which is the Bread of Life, which is Christ himself and all the teachings, if God could do it then, with fallible sinners, like Peter and Paul and John and Matthew, couldn't He still do it? In other words, certainly God is capable; and if you look around at how the Church spreads throughout the world, and how the Church encounters all kinds of crazies down through the ages, do you suppose that Jesus would say, "Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible."
    Oh, really? In just 500 years, there are literally thousands and thousands of denominations that are becoming ever more numerous continuously because they only go with the Bible. It points to the fact that we need an infallible interpretation of this infallible book, don't we. I mean, can you imagine the fathers of our country putting together the U.S. Constitution and mailing it out to every citizen and saying, "Fend for yourselves. Go it alone; with the spirit of Washington you will be guided to your proper interpretation." What do you call that? Anarchy. We wouldn't have lasted a month as a nation. The Constitution established a governmental structure with a court of final appeal, the Supreme Court, that is final in all matters of constitutional interpretation.
    Now that's in the human sphere. If the constitutional founders had sufficient wisdom to see the need for one little nation in 200 years to have a court of final appeal, how much more would Christ see the need to establish and constitute in the Church and putting in His constitution not only the truth but the official organs for interpreting and enforcing and explaining and preaching and proclaiming that truth. It's just common sense. It's not unprecedented either.
    Somebody could say, "Well, this idea of Peter speaking ex- cathedra, that's bogus, that's novel, that's unheard of'." I would say, "No, it's not." When the Church teaches about how, the Pope when he speaks from the Chair of Peter, Ex Cathedra, "from the seat or from the cathedra" (we get the word cathedral from the fact that's where the bishop's cathedra is) the Church isn't inventing something new. It's building, rather, on the teachings of Jesus.
    Turn to Matthew 23, verses 1 and 2, "Then said Jesus to the crowds and to His disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do, for they preach but they don't practice.'" They preach, but they don't practice what they preach. What's he saying? Jesus says, "The scribes and the Pharisees." Now, what does Jesus think of the scribes and the Pharisees? Well, read the rest of Matthew 23 and you will discover it. He goes on in this chapter to call the scribes and the Pharisees "fools, hypocrites, blind guides, vipers and whitewashed tombs." He doesn't think too highly of the scribes and the Pharisees, does He?
    But what does He say here? "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat." Therefore, "you have to," it's in the imperative tense, "You have to practice and observe whatever they tell you." "Whatever they tell you," you have to practice and observe. Why? Because they sit on Moses' cathedras. The Greek word is "cathedra". The Church, when it speaks of Peter's authority and the Popes speaking ex-cathedra are simply borrowing from Jesus' teaching.
    Now, I would challenge anybody to go back into the Old Testament and find some explicit text in the Old Testament where we find Moses establishing a chair, some endowed seat, that will always have successors. You don't find a text explicitly saying that. So why does Jesus refer to it. Because there is also oral tradition, even in the Old Testament, which was used by God to transmit certain essential terms that the covenant family of God requires and depends upon for its life. Jesus doesn't quote a text. He appeals to a well-known oral tradition that He assumes the scribes and the Pharisees know about as well as His listeners. He doesn't just assume they know it, He assumes they are going to submit to it, and that they have been submitting to it. It's just that they have been experiencing problems because Old Testament priests and bishops are sometimes just as troublesome as New Testament priests and bishops are. But why do we follow, because they have so much charm and charisma? No, because Jesus Christ has established in the Old Testament a seat of Moses which is replaced in the New Testament with the seat of Peter.
    In the Old Testament we don't have the full disclosure of all final revelation, but in the New Testament Jesus tells us that He will guide us in all truth. We don't say that Moses and his successors were infallible; because the fullness of the truth had not yet been given. But once it is given to the Apostles and their successors, we can see why Jesus guarantees that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church. Why? Because of what Jesus has entrusted to this cathedra, this Petrine seat, the sea of Peter in Rome.
    This is such assurance for us that whether John XI or John XII, two of the most sinful Popes in all of history or Alexander VI; I mean these guys were scoundrels. We have had scoundrels for Popes. Out of the hundreds of Popes, it's amazing to think that there were really only three or four scoundrels, but that should bother you. But should it cause you to overthrow your confidence in listening to the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Pope? No, of course not. For one thing, you can be grateful that these scoundrels were too busy sinning to even attempt teaching from the seat of Peter. They didn't, and they brought great confusion upon the Church so it is a deplorable condition.
    But let's consider one fact. Jesus chose twelve Apostles, didn't He? And what about those twelve Apostles? One of them was Judas. Did Jesus know it beforehand? You bet He did. Why did He choose him? Maybe to get us ready for Judas priests in all generations.
    Peter's Place in the Early Church
    But what does the Church do after Jesus is ascended into heaven, after Judas has committed suicide? Turn to Acts 1 to see what the Church does in response to Judas' death and Jesus' departure. It's very interesting and important because Peter stands up with the eleven in the Upper Room, verse 15, and He speaks about Judas' death and He says, "It was known beforehand and had even been prophesied in the Old Testament" and so what should we do now?
    Notice that Peter -- and by the way, notice that it is Peter who stands up. He's not just contributing an opinion. When Peter declares an opinion it is binding and immediately following, exactly what he advises. And what is it he advises? He quotes the Psalms, "Let his habitation become desolate and let there be no one to live in it." But then he doesn't say, "Hey, guys, we're from twelve down to eleven. We better hang together now or we might end up hanging separately. No we're just down to eleven and it's going to be us from now on." He doesn't say that.
    He says, "His office, let another take." Or as the King James version says, "His bishopric, let other men take." The word there is episcopae, where we get the word episcopacy or episcopal. It's the word for bishop. In other words, there's an epioscopal office that is now empty and vacant. Peter stands up and says, "Well obviously, automatically, in line with the Old Testament tradition, in line with this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in God's family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty offices that must be filled," Peter is just obviously appealing to this Old Testament precedent is saying, "Let another man his bishopric, his office, take."
    And they draw lots and they choose Matthias. No debate, no novelty. The other ten don't say, "Huh, what are you talking about, Simon? This is weird." No, they understand, but even more, they submit. There's no debate, no discussion.
    Notice also in Acts 2, Peter's responsibility, not just over the ten, but over all of Jerusalem. He is the one who preaches the first sermon, that Pentecost, verse 14. He is the spokesman for the Church to the world at Pentecost.
    Then you go on in chapter 3, we see Peter's second sermon. We also see that Peter is the instrument by which the first real healing miracle occurs, the lame man in the temple in Jerusalem in the portico called Solomon, I should say.
    Then in chapter 4, we see Peter's pre-eminence emerging even further as he exercises his teaching authority over the Jewish senate, the Sanhedrin. He's put on trial, so you think he's going to be defensive. He's going to come to His own defense saying, "Oh gosh, guys, you know, please don't do these things." But no. He puts the Sanhedrin on trial for crucifying the Lord. He exercises supreme authority over the Jewish senate. It left them flabbergasted! Who does this fisherman think he is? The vicar of Christ over the family of God. And so they're set free. They are astounded at his boldness.
    Then in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira, two wealthy members of the Church, sell some land and then lie about how much money they gave to the Church. Peter said to Ananias, "What are you doing?" Ananias says, "Well I gave you all the money." And Peter says, "You are lying to the Holy Spirit." Ananias said, "No, I'm just lying to you, Peter." But no. In lying to Peter, Ananias was lying to the Holy Spirit and to the Church. He's struck dead! A few hours later his wife Sapphira comes along. Peter says, "What happened?" "Oh, we sold the land for this amount, and we gave you all the money." And, "Hark, the footsteps of the men who just carried out your husband are coming for you." She drops dead! "And great fear came upon all those who heard of it," in verse 5.
    No wonder. Petrine promise was rather apparent here. I mean Peter's pre-eminence was on display for the whole Church and the whole world and all the Jews to see and to behold. And it goes on and on and on. We see Peter, for instance, in Acts 11 and 12 -- even before that -- Acts 8, the first time non-Jewish half-breeds, Samaritans are brought into the Church. They are baptized. Word reaches Jerusalem that these non-Jewish half-breeds, the Samaritans are coming into the Church. Immediately, what do they do? Send Peter and John. They go down there and what do they do? Well, a Confirmation action, here. "They lay the hand," verse 14, "When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed they might receive the Holy Spirit." They were baptized but they hadn't received this additional grace that we often associate with Confirmation. Then the laying on of hands; they received the Holy Spirit and then Simon Magus tried to buy the gift and Peter rebukes him.
    "May your money," verse 20, "May your money perish with you because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money. You have no part to share in this ministry because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord and perhaps He will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart, for I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." At this point Simon, who probably had heard of Ananias and Sapphira was trembling, you know. "Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me." I mean, even if some don't see Peter's promise, at least Simon Magus, the first heretic in the Church did. He said, "Please pray for me that I won't become the next Ananias and Sapphira."
    Acts 11, now we're not talking about half-breeds; now we are talking about just plain outsiders, the Goene, the Gentiles, the swine, those that the Jews had often considered to be mere beasts. Cornelius, the first Gentile believer is going to be let into the Church? This is going to cause scandal. What's the Holy Spirit going to do? Have Peter be the first to authorize and admit the first Gentile Christian.
    So Peter has this vision and in Acts 10 and 11, I should say, he has this vision: he's being commanded by God in this vision to kill and to eat these unclean animals that symbolize the Gentiles. He says, "I've never done it." Three times later he says, "Okay, okay, I'll do it." And then these people come and say, "We're being sent from Cornelius, the Gentile Centurion." In a dream, in a vision, the Lord had said to Cornelius, "Send for a guy named Peter." So Peter comes and what happens? Well, Peter goes up to his house and he perceives, verse 34, he says after he's baptizing Cornelius, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."
    So then he goes ahead, preaches the gospel, baptizes these Gentiles and admits the first non-Jewish believers into the Church. And I mean, this could have been the greatest crisis of all, but there isn't even a fizzle, practically. But look at chapter 11, verse 2, "When Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, 'You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.'" And he explained exactly what happened and said, "Hey, God told me." It's Peter and they stopped.
    But the crisis reaches an even higher point in chapter 15. We have the famous Council of Jerusalem where there's a huge debate tearing apart the Church. These Gentile believers, do we circumcise them or not? Well you might say, "How important is that?" Well, gentlemen, if you were in your twenties, thirties and forties and you were considering conversion and along with conversion, you had to get circumcised, you might end up considering conversion a lot longer than if all you needed was baptism, right? There was sort of a strategic purpose behind all of this. But notice, as the debate is raging, all of a sudden it stops. When? Verse 6 and 7, "The Apostles and elders met together. After much debate Peter stood up and addressed them," and he basically says the Holy Spirit purified their hearts through Baptism, circumcision isn't needed; end all debate! The only thing that follows is that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, adds the kind of qualifying proviso so that the Jews are not needlessly scandalized in Gentile lands. But Peter's word was final and absolute. The debate ended. Peter had spoken.
    Now you might say, "Well, this is just Peter." No, the keys symbolize succession, an office which is left vacant must be filled. This is something that the Church understood. This is something that was well-known to the early Church. I hardly have time to get into this, but I have all these note cards about the early Church, after the death of the last Apostles, recognizing that the Bishop of Rome had Peter's authority and that was final and absolute.
    Early Church Fathers Recognized Papal Primacy and Succession
    Clement of Rome, about 96, writing to Corinth about this disunity, "But if any disobey the word spoken by him, Peter, through us." Remember Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus? Those were the first Popes.
    Irenaeus, writing in the 2nd Century says, "Anyone who wished to discern the truth may see in every Church in the whole world, the Apostolic succession clear and manifest." We saw that in Acts 1. I mean, if Judas' office when left vacant is filled by a successor, then why should we be scandalized and lose our faith if a Pope is a scoundrel? You know, you may say, "The Pope shouldn't be a scoundrel." I'd say, "Yeah and amen." But Jesus knew that it wasn't going to be human strength and human authority that would put it all together for the Church. That's why He chose a Judas in the first place, to assure our hearts that no matter who was in the Apostolic seat, whether it's Peter or the other Apostles, his Bishops, it's Jesus' omnipotent love for His family that will see us through to the truth, no matter what may come.
    Irenaeus goes on and says, "We can enumerate those who were appointed as bishops in the churches by the Apostles and their successors down to our own day, but as it would be very long in a book of this kind to enumerate the successors of all through the churches, I will point out the Apostolic tradition in faith announced to mankind." And it goes on. Speaking about the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul at Rome -- I won't read the whole quote, it goes on, but there also we see Iraneaus in the 2nd Century underscoring the Bishops as the successors to the Apostles and the Bishop of Rome, in particular, as the successor to Peter.
    Tertullian in the late 100's and the early 200's A.D. said, "Was anything withheld from Peter who was called the Rock on which the Church should be built, who also obtained the keys to the kingdom of heaven with the power of binding and loosing in heaven and earth?"
    Origen, in the late 100's spoke of Peter first because, "He was more honored than the rest."
    St. Cyprian spoke of the Roman Church founded on Peter who fixed his chair in Rome. He speaks of the Church in Rome as our Mother Church, "the root of universality and Catholicity."
    Hilary in the 300's speaks of the foundation of the Church on the Rock from which the Church was built. In other words, the early Church Fathers recognized this. The Protestant historian, Goodspeed, in his history book says, "The claim of primacy among the bishops for its head began under Victor in the 2nd Century and progressed under Calistus who claimed the power of the keys and reached a peak under Stephen in the 3rd Century, who professed to occupy the chair of St. Peter." Now even Cyprian, when he opposed Stephen as Pope, didn't oppose authority but opposed his opinions. Then finally, because Cyprian is St. Cyprian, he gave in to the Pope which is why he became a saint. St. Cyprian says, "A primacy is given to Peter and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair."
    I have about thirty quotes from a Syriac saint and Father, St. Ephraim. He is the one who just reaches to the clouds for words to describe the authority of Peter and his successors in the Sea of Rome. I don't have time to go through these all, but I recommend a three- volume work written by a Professor Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, and it goes through all the Fathers and the many, many things they said to show that they recognize this authority in the Pope. Augustine, for instance, "Even if some traitor crept into this order of Bishops which is drawn from Peter, himself, up to Anastasius who now occupies the same See, he would not prejudice the Church." He speaks of the cathedre Petri.
    When you look at St. Augustine, a great saint and Father that the Protestants revere, Augustine had more things to say about the Popes as successors to Peter with all of his plenary authority than almost anybody else in the first seven centuries of the Church. It's astonishing. Augustine said, "Who is ignorant that the chief Apostolate is to be preferred to any Episcopate?" Of the dignity of Peter he says, "in whom the primacy of the Apostles shone forth with excelling grace."
    Another Objection: Why Wasn't Papal Infallibility Defined Until the 1800's? The Bible Never Mentions Papal Infallibility.
    Now, we could go on and on. Somebody could say, "Now, wait a second. Why wasn't Papal infallibility defined until the 1800s? The Bible never says Papal infallibility." No it doesn't. But the Bible never says Trinity, either. And all non-Catholic Christians affirm the Trinity. Why wasn't the word "Trinity" used? Well, because the word Trinity wasn't necessary until heresies arose that forced the Church to formulate and to defend the doctrine of God, one God in Three Persons adequately and sufficiently. At that point, they came up with a very helpful term, "Tri-unity" or Trinity to do so.
    Likewise, in looking at Matthew 16 and the unconditional guarantee that Jesus gives to Peter, the recipient of the keys, the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church which is built upon the Rock. The gates of Hades will not prevail against Peter and his successors. Well, the gates of Hades derive their power from error, from untruth, from falsehood, the father of lies. If one lie is allowed into the Church's pure, sacred teaching, that's like taking a window pane and putting one crack into it. I'll tell you what happens. I was driving down a highway in Milwaukee and a little pebble bounced up and just touched the windshield, a little crack. What happened? Over the next few months, my wife will tell you, that crack grew and grew, and we had to replace it because the whole thing could have been shattered.
    Conclusion
    If one should admit one falsehood, defined as truth, the gates of Hades have prevailed. Christ has given us an unconditional guarantee that they will not prevail because he will build His Church upon Peter and His successors, the Rock, the foundation stone. This gives us confidence because the family of God on earth is never left without a father figure to teach and to help us.
    Now, if a Judas-type occupies the Chair, you better believe that God will graciously pour out an extra measure of the Holy Spirit to protect His children and see that that scoundrel is out, quick. And they were. And to show that these people were exposed -- every Catholic historian will admit that certain Popes, a very, very few, were scoundrels who were acting too scoundrelish to even bother teaching, thanks be to God. But this gives to us the kind of confidence we need as God's sons and daughters to listen to the Holy Father, John Paul II, and hear the voice of Christ because this awesome grace that is given to the Pope is one of the many graces that Christ died to give to us.
    Let's treasure it. Let's cherish it and let's live it out with God's grace and power. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we pray, Our Father, etc.

    
    dona nobis pacem

64. Mike says on Jan 22, 2009 @ 10:07 AM:

    Thanks David for the book recommendations and the review of history. There is simply too much to reply, too, but I think that some of the objections that were rebutted in the reply, deserve to be more carefully considered.

    The Bible itself is clear that Peter was the leader of the apostles and was given the keys of the Kingdom by Christ. I have little concern with the debate over the Greek text. We see Peter using the keys and opening up the Kingdom to both Jews and Gentiles in the Acts.

    We also see that Judas was replaced in the Acts. However, the qualifications of his successor should be noted, for they disqualify any future apostolic successors after that present generation passed on. (Actually, using Judas as a precedent makes one wonder why we do not have eleven apostles and one Pope today. I suppose that the precedent does not prove that Matthias should be succeeded, but is only used to prove that Peter should be).

    However, the purpose of this discussion is not to prove apostolic succession and the heredity supremacy of Peter, we are trying to figure out how to be justified according to the present Pope! He has made statements that imply Luther was correct, as long as the faith that justifies produces charity.

    I would really like to know if we can take this statement at face value, or do we have to add anything else?

    I might add, I am pleased to see that one does not have to be a Roman Catholic to get to heaven, but I still wonder how my Roman Catholic friends and relatives will make it when they do not think that they will be justified by “faith and charity” but by their membership in the “true” church, their practice of the sacraments, and all the other devotional requirements of the Church.

    May the Lord be merciful to us as we struggle with this.

65. Rayburne says on Jan 22, 2009 @ 12:57 PM:

    Hi David:
    I also would like to tank you for your book recommendations and the review of history. I agree with Mike that the Bible clearly teaches that Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom by Christ. As Mike indicated, we see Peter using the keys and opening up the Kingdom to both Jews and Gentiles in the Acts. However, I strongly disagree with your contention from the viewpoint of scripture (especially Matthew 16:18) and history that the church is built on Peter and that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. I would like also to address this matter of the primacy of the Pope and infallibility, as it relates to divine inspiration. Since you mentioned many reputable scholars, I would like to mention just one. This is from Dr. Bruce Milne, pastor of First Baptist Church in Vancouver, B.C and forwarded by J.I. Packer, whom I’m sure you have heard of. He begins:

    The apostle is a witness to the ministry and resurrection of Jesus, and hence an authorized bearer of the gospel (Luke 6:12f; Acts 1:2f; 1 Corinth 5:8-10). The apostles stand between Jesus and all subsequent generations of Christian faith; we reach Him only by way of the apostles and their testimony to Him incorporated in the NT. In this most fundamental sense the whole church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20 compare Matt. 16:18; Rev. 21:14). The apostolicity of the church therefore lies in its conformity to the apostolic faith “once entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3, cf. Acts 2:42). The apostles still rule and order the church in so far as the church permits its life, understanding and preaching to be constantly reformed by the teaching of Holy Scripture.
    
    It is an error to understand apostolicity as a historic continuity of ministry running back to Christ and His apostles through a succession of bishops. This interpretation lacks any clear NT support. The whole notion of the grace of God communicated through a historical succession of officials runs counter to the character of the church in the biblical writings. Further, as a guarantee of the truth of the apostolic message, Episcopal succession has signally failed. It was a church which stood squarely within this historic succession which required the 16th century Reformation, not to mention other lesser reformations such as the 18th- century awakening under Whitefield and the Wesleys.
    
    Roman Catholicism extends this interpretation of “apostolic” to include the claim that the bishop of Rome is the historical successor of Peter and the special custodian of God’s grace in the church. This claim is untenable. Peter’s primacy among the apostles was no more than conspicuous leadership during the earliest Christian mission. He clearly receded into the background as the church moved out from Jerusalem, as Paul was commissioned to pioneer the mission beyond Palestine, and as John struggled to repair the churches from the ravages of false teachers. Crucially, Peter did not appear in the principal role at the Council of Jerusalem, but James (Acts 15) and was clearly in Paul’s shadow in the incident recorded in Galatians 2.

    Catholicism further claims that the alleged supremacy of Peter was to be continued for the eternal salvation and continuing good of the church. None of the verses cited in scriptural support for this (Matt. 16:18; John 21:15-17; Luke 22:32) makes any reference to a successor to Peter. These two Roman claims run counter to plain NT evidence, and their third claim, that Peter’s primacy continues in the bishop of Rome, is even less credible. That Peter ended his life as a martyr in Rome is an early tradition which has a good measure of support; the historical difficulties, however, in showing that there has been an established succession of monarchical bishops of Rome from the first century onwards are insurmountable.

    Apostolic succession is properly the succession of the apostolic gospel, when the original deposit of apostolic truth is passed from one generation to another: “faithful men…to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:2). A church is apostolic as it recognizes in practice the supreme authority of the apostolic scriptures.

    I'm not sure you understand what the Bible and protestants mean by “inspiration”.

    “Inspiration” refers to the way in which God’s self revelation has come to be expressed in the words of the Bible. It is that activity of the Spirit of God whereby he superintended the human authors of scripture so that their writings became a normative expression in human language of God’s word to humanity. In “inspiration” it is important to stress that we are not dealing here with “natural” (unregenerate or unsaved); the people God used in conveying His truth had been renewed by the Spirit and drawn (John 6:44) into relationship with Himself. To deny that mere humans can articulate the truth of God amounts to denying that human language can ever, in principle, be the vehicle of divine truth. No doubt the human writers remained sinners (saved by grace) to the end of their days, but this does not prevent their being the mouthpieces of God’s truth; the biblical writers were uniquely superintended by the action of Almighty God through His Spirit in all factors influencing their message.

    To call the Bible “inspired” is simply another way of saying that it is God’s authoritative self-revelation. Indeed, its divine inspiration (Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is inspired by God…”) gives that very authority that the Spirit confirms. Accordingly, all the arguments used to establish the inspiration of scripture are also arguments for establishing the unique authority of the Bible as God’s Word. ”Infallibility” means that all the bible’s assertions are truthful and worthy of entire confidence, implying a contrast with human ”fallible” words and statements. The infallibility of scripture refers to its message viewed as a whole. This is not to imply that certain passages and texts are not infallible, but rather that each particular statement and section is infallible within the context of the whole of scripture. If for example, we quote in isolation James question: “Can faith save him?” (James 2:14) with its implied answer “No,” we will miss the infallible truth of God in the letter of James., which is attained only when that is read within the total framework (context) of the letter and set alongside the complementary teaching of other parts of Scripture, notably Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians. Obviously, it does not follow that any or every human interpretation of a passage of scripture, or of the Bible as a whole, is infallible. Infallibility is really the inevitable concomitant of the divine authority and inspiration explained above (and not the special office of the Pope of Rome). To assert with Jesus that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17) and to appeal to its very letter as he consistently did (I.e. Matthew 19:5, in which He equates words of the OT with God’s words), is of the essence of what we mean by “infallible.” Like infallibility, inerrancy is a corollary of divine inspiration. If the Bible has been supervised down to its very words by the God of truth, we can be confident that it will be free from error. Thus whenever the Bible prescribes the content of our belief (doctrine) or the pattern of our living (ethics) or records actual events (history), it speaks the truth. Again, it must be made clear that the degree of inerrancy claimed in any particular case is relative to what the text intends to teach. It is also relative to the kind of literature in which the text is expressed. Hence for example, the inerrant truth of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son does not require us to hold that there has ever been exactly such a family in any particular society. When a passage of scripture is interpreted in accord with the writer’s intention and in harmony with other biblical passages, its inerrant truth will be plainly perceived. God bless.

66. David Castlen says on Jan 23, 2009 @ 01:26 PM:

    Fr. Rolando Excellsior de la Fuentes is the pastor of a small mission in SW New Mexico. The name of the church is St. Verona's of the Sound. It got its name because the church bells when rung have had the most mellodious and comforting sound one could imagine. Like the Celtic strings of yore tied to a Vovadie (spelling) piece of music put in crisp soft bell tones. Everyone, to this day waits in great anticipation for the noon "anoucement." It is located in Ranco Viero near the crystal clear springs of Nueva Springs. Gustabo Hermano Gesepio is the ringer of the bells. Well, I should say "was," a couple of months ago at age 84 he left for the choirs of angles. Bad heart, old age. Gustabo Hermano Gesepio learned the old art of ringing the bells from his father,Gustabo Francisco Gesepio who was handed the tradition from his dad. None of them werre particularly talented except Gustabo Hermano Gesepio. Many have said Gusabo Hermano Gesepio was given his talent from a bishop who blessed him while passing through St. Verona's on his way to Phoenix durring the depression. Before CDs and records became pleniful, in the forty's, touriest from near by Santa Fe would take a drive down to hear him ring the noon day bells.

    Well, now that Gustabo Hermano Gesepio has died and left no one to ring the bells, St. Verona's of the Sound and Fr. Rolando Excellsior de la Fuentes has found themselves in a bit of a dilema. Last week a fellow without arms approached Fr. Ronaldo Excellsior de la Fuentes and asked to ring the bells. Fr. Ronaldo Excellsior de la Fuentes was taken aback and without thinking of hurting his feeling told him that anyone without arms could not possibly ring the bells. The fellow without arms was persistant and a bit annoying. Fr. Rolaldo Excellsior de la Fuentes was terribly bussy that day with all the problems and typical pastor encounters. And this day in particular had double the amount of duties for Fr. ronaldo Excellsior de la Fuentes. So he reluctantly said to the man OK. He thought he had made a hasty decision but "who could be hurt."

    Well, twelve O'clock came and it was time to hear the angles. The man without arms climbed up the bell tower and began to hit the bell with his head and face. Soon, the poor soul was out cold as a cucumber lying on the bell tower floor.

    There at St. Verona's of the Sound was Fr.Rolondo Excellsior de la Fuente and the dead replacement for Gustabo Hermano Gesepio along with all the people in the town square. Fr. Rolando Excellsior de la Fuente, looking into the crowd, said, "I hired this man hastily, does anyone know him." One man came forward in the crowd, Oscar Mangualiento,and said, "I don't know who he is, but his face sure rings a bell."

67. Rayburne says on Jan 24, 2009 @ 01:04 PM:

    Hi David,
    That was an interesting and amusing story ("his face sure rings a bell"). It sort of reminds me of an old "Newfie Joke" about a Newfoundlander ("Newfie") who bumped into a Christian friend he not seen in a long time. "What church do you go to?" he asked. His friend replied, "the Anglican Church, does that ring a bell?" Oh well, I was not the best at telling jokes. here is another. I once heard about a Newfie away from home, who decided to go to the United Church. When he arrived very late, the service was almost over, so he stood outside the front door and listened to the hymn they were singing. All he could hear were the words, repeated, "Will there be any stars in my crown, in my crown?". He had noticed that there was another (Anglican) church across the road, so he decided to go there and listen at the front entrance. He heard them also singing a hymn, but all he could hear clearly were the words, repeated: "No, not one, No, not one." Oh well, what would life be without a little humour?

    Now, I would like for you to answer the three questions I raised in a previous comment. I will state them again below:

    1)Are you sure of going to heaven when you die?

    Catholic teaching states that anyone who claims to have the assurance of salvation through God's power or mercy has committed the sin of presumption (2092).

    (2) Do you know what God's righteous justice demands for "all" sin? (Ans.Hell)."For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10).

    Catholic teaching states venial sins do not bring death to the soul or eternal punishment (1472).

    (3) Do you believe puratory purifies you of sin?

    This belief denies the sufficiency of the once for all time, Sacrifice of the sinless Son of God in our place for our sin on Calvary's Cross (1473). See Hebrews 10:10-12.

    By the way, Mary was not sinless according to scripture. In Luke 1:46-47 Mary, pregnant with Jesus, after announcing to Elizabeth (then pregnant with John the Baptist)the glorious news that she would give birth to "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35),she (Mary) says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour" (Luke 1:46-47). Now, scripture consistently teaches that only a sinner needs a Saviour (see Matthew 9:13; Romans 5:8; 5:19; 1 Timothy 1:15, etc.), so Mary, by acknowledging Christ to be her ("my") Saviour, was undeniably admitting that she was a sinner in need of a Saviour. The RRC teaches that Mary is the sinless co-Redeemer, "Without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and work of her son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with Him...being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race". Such a wholly unscriptural dogma, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, logically requires the impeccability of Mary on the principle that a sinless child requires a sinless mother. But this is not so. The coming of the Spirit upon Mary declared that in Christ God entered completely and fully into our human experience from the very moment of conception.

    The RRC Bible consistently refers to one only sinless Redeemer--the Lord Jesus Christ: "knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptibe things, like silver or gold...but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet. 1:18-19). "In Him (Christ) we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7)."being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24). "But of Him you are in Christ, who became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (1 Corinth. 1:30). "For He made Him (Christ)who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corint. 5:21). I could go on, but it is not necessary.

    Finally, as Mike already pointed out, "we are trying to figure out how to be justified according to the present Pope. He has made statements that imply Luther was correct, as long as the faith that justifies produces charity."

    Both Mike and I would really like to know if we can take this statement at face value, or do we have to add anything else? God bless.

68. David Castlen says on Jan 26, 2009 @ 09:11 AM:

    Rayburne:
    Because I am strained for time, with your approval,I will respond very briefly to your three questions. (actually five). These responses will be, for the most part, propositions, later I will provide more supporting evidence and rational. 99% of what I give you is from Karl Keating and his staff at Catholic Answers

    1. Are you sure of going to heaven? No
    Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.

    2. Do you know what God's rightious justice demands for "all" sin? Hell
    This will be addressed later when I address #3 later when I submit my proofs.

    3. Do you believe in purgatory? Yes
    Suffering in the final stage does not conflict with SUFFICIENCY of Christ atonement. Suffering in the early stages of santification also presents a similar conclict. Our suffering in santification does not take away from the cross. Rather the cross produces our sanctificqtion, which results in our suffering, because "for the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.......There are other passages (which I will later quote)that speaks of the necessity of purging found in Holy Scripture, such as 2 Thes 2:13 which declares that God chose us "to be saved through santification by the Spirit."......it is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 2:14 states that we must strive "for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

    4. "By the way, Mary was not sinless according to scripture...." Yes she was.
    An implicit reference may be found in the angel's greeting to Mary. The Angel Gabriel said "Hail, full of grace the Lord is with you!" (Lk 1:28) The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic of Mary. ..... The grace given to Mary is permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace. Mary was filled and is being filled

    5. Finnally, as Mike already pointed out, "we are trying to figure out how to be justified according to the present Pope. He made statements that imply Luther was correct, as long as faith that justifies produces charity."
    First, implied in your 'question' is an assumption that one Pope will have another dogma than another on matters of Faith and Morals. You will never find that. By the way, all revelation stopped with the death of St. John; the only thing The Magistrium does is clarify what has been revealed by The Word: Jesus Christ. Again, there has been no new revelation since St. John's death.
    Second, the way I understand it (and again I will write back details later), Faith and Works are one. Without works of charity there can be no Faith. Those goats who said "Lord Lord," Could be singing the blues come Judgement day.

    I hope you will wait for my detailed response to these five issues. God bless

69. Rayburne says on Jan 26, 2009 @ 05:09 PM:

    The Roman Catholic idea of purgatory claims that, in the period between death and the fullness of the new age, the souls of believers are subjected to an experience of purification to fit them for the final vision of God. There is no clear biblical evidence for such an idea. 1 Corinthians 3:15, which is often cited in this connection, concerns the judgment of a Christian’s service and ministry (for determination of rewards or loss of same). Other passages mentioned as supporting the notion of purgatory (Isaiah 4:4; Mal. 3:2f.;Matt. 12:32; 18:34) certainly do not teach such a view on any straightforward interpretation. Purgatory is also to be rejected because it is fundamentally at variance with the biblical doctrine of justification. To die in faith, even when that faith is exercised in one’s final conscious moments (Luke 23:43; Rom. 5:1; 8:1, 33f.), is to die justified, clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ and assured of full acquittal at God’s judgment seat. The Lord’s response to the believing thief on the cross was “to day shalt thou be with me in paradise (not purgatory). Read the whole account in Luke 23:32-43. You are really straining the interpretation of 2 Thes 2:13 and Hebrews 2:14 beyond the limit to attempt to read purgatory into (eisegesis) these verses. 2 Thess. 2:13 simply states the fact of our election ("God, from the beginning chose you for salvation...") "through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth." Again, Hebrews 2:14 merely stresses that those who are "partakers of Christ" (through believing the gospel) must continue to persevere or overcome until the end--and numerous scriptures (i.e. Phil. 1:6; 2 Tim. 1:12; Rom. 8:30; John 6:37, 39; 10:27-29;etc.) assure us that all who are in Christ Jesus will persevere or overcome to the end. There is not even a hint of purgatory in these verses.

    The idea of a “second chance” to respond to the gospel during the intermediate state is often incorporated in some statements of universalism. There is no biblical foundation for this view. “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). That is as unambiguous as Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom (another name for paradise): the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell (not purgatory) he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

    4. I must state that most orthodox Greek scholars would not interpret the Angel Gabriel's statement:"Hail, full of grace the Lord is with you!" (Lk 1:28) to imply that Mary was sinless. Indeed, allowing scripture to interpret scripture, it is contrary to all sound principles of hermeneutics and sound biblical exegesis to build a doctrine that so enormous in its implications on an obscure, isolated passage, when there are numberous verses, as I have clearly stated (I.e. 1 Pet.1:18-19; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 3:24;1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21, etc.) that consistently refer to one only sinless Redeemer--the Lord Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ (not Mary) is the only assured way to God is explicitly stated in John 14:6: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." NO, this exclusive claim of Christ that He is is the only assured way to the Father ("No one comes to the Father except through Me") is confirmed by 1 Timothy 2:5 (scripture interprets scripture): "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." The Holy Spirit,Who inspired the writers to convey God's infallible and inerrant truth in His inscripturated Word, and Who cannot lie, would not deliberately lead sinners astray by such a statement that there is "One Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus," if, in fact, there were actually two Mediators (Christ Jesus and Mary, Co-Mediatress with Jesus).Indeed, if that is not clear enough for anyone to understand, then, nothing could be clearer than the explicit statement in Acts 4:12: "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." "No other name," referring to Jesus Christ (read verses 10 and 11 preceding it in the same context)certainly rules out Mary as a "sinless, co-Redeemer with Jesus Christ in salvation. How dare we distort and pervert the clear meaning of God'e holy Word by reading into scripture (eisegesis) what it explicitly and definitely does not teach. Read John 12:48: He who rejects Me, and does not receive my words (as they are clearly stated in scripture, John 14:6; John 10:9;etc. ), has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day."

70. Rayburne says on Jan 26, 2009 @ 05:37 PM:

    By the way, Luke 1:28 does not say that the Angel Gabriel said to Mary:"Hail, full of grace the Lord is with you!" (Lk 1:28). The KJV translates it: "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that are higly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women" The NKJV translates it: "And having come in, the angel said to her, 'Rejoice, highly favoured one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women." There is a world of difference in biblical meaning between "Hail, full of grace, the lord is with you" and "Hail, thou that art highly favoured ("Rejoive highly favoured one")the Lord is with thee: blessed are thou among women" (NKJV, 'the lord is with you; blessed are you among women"). Again, you are reading into scripture what is not there.

71. Rayburne says on Jan 27, 2009 @ 11:01 AM:

    I checked out current translations of Luke 1:28

    International Standard Version (©2008) "The angel came to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you!"

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)"And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

    GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)"When the angel entered her home, he greeted her and said, "You are favored by the Lord! The Lord is with you."

    King James Bible: "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

    American King James Version:"And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, you that are highly favored, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women."

    American Standard Version: "And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee."

    Bible in Basic English: "And the angel came in to her and said, Peace be with you, to whom special grace has been given; the Lord is with you."

    Douay-Rheims Bible: "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

    Darby Bible Translation: "And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, thou favoured one! the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou amongst women."

    English Revised Version: "And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee"

    Webster's Bible Translation: "And the angel came to her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

    Weymouth New Testament: "So Gabriel went into the house and said to her, "Joy be to you, favoured one! the Lord is with you."

    World English Bible: "Having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, you highly favored one! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women!"

    Young's Literal Translation: "And the messenger having come in unto her, said, 'Hail, favoured one, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women;"

    Geneva Study Bible:"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

    I checked some of my commentaries on the Mary question.

    Matthew Poole. Ver. 28. Hail, thou that art highly favoured. The word translated hail signifies, Rejoice thou, or is as much as, God save thee. It is not the form of a prayer, (as the papists use it), but an ordinary salutation, as much as, God save you, or, Good morrow, is amongst us.
    Thou that art highly favoured, kecaritwmenh; the word comes originally from cariv, which signifieth in Scripture two things:
    1. The free love and favour of another bestowed on any: thus it is taken #Lu 1:30 thou hast found favour. To the praise of the glory of his grace, #Eph 1:6.
    2. It signifies good habits in the soul; as #2Pe 3:18, Grow in grace; #Col 3:16, Singing with grace in your hearts.
    Hence the verb, a participle from which the word here used is, may signify, two things; either:
    1. Thou hast received grace or favour from God, or,
    2. Thou that art full of gracious habits.
    The first seems to be its sense in this place: it followeth in the verse, blessed art thou; so also it is expounded #Lu 1:30, for thou hast found favour with God. So as the virgin was the object of Divine grace, as we are, and therefore not to be prayed to as the fountain of grace; she herself had nothing but what she received. This whole verse seemeth to be only a salutation, there is nothing of a prayer in it; the angel doth only take notice of her as a favourite of Heaven, one dear unto his Lord, with whom God was in an especial manner, and whom God blessed above the rate of those ordinary blessings with which he blesseth other women.

    Robertson
    Highly favoured (kecaritwmenh). Perfect passive participle of caritow and means endowed with grace (cariv), enriched with grace as in #Eph 1:6, non ut mater gratiae, sed ut filia gratiae (Bengel). The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow"’ (Plummer). The oldest MSS. do not have "Blessed art thou among women" here, but in verse #Lu 1:42.

    Wesley's Notes: 1:28 "Hail, thou highly favoured; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women - Hail is the salutation used by our Lord to the women after his resurrection: thou art highly favoured, or hast found favour with God, Lu 1:30, is no more than was said of Noah, Moses, and David. The Lord is with thee, was said to Gideon, Jud 6:12; and blessed shall she be above women, of Jael, Jud 5:24. This salutation gives no room for any pretence of paying adoration to the virgin; as having no appearance of a prayer, or of worship offered to her.
    King James Translators' Notes highly...: or, graciously accepted, or, of much grace.

    Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
    28. highly favoured-a word only once used elsewhere (Eph 1:6, "made accepted"): compare Lu 1:30, "Thou hast found favour with God." The mistake of the Vulgate's rendering, "full of grace," has been taken abundant advantage of by the Romish Church. As the mother of our Lord, she was the most "blessed among women" in external distinction; but let them listen to the Lord's own words. "Nay, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it." (See on [1537]Lu 11:27).

    Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:
    1:26-38 We have here an account of the mother of our Lord; though we are not to pray to her, yet we ought to praise God for her. Christ must be born miraculously. The angel's address means only, Hail, thou that art the especially chosen and favoured of the Most High, to attain the honour Jewish mothers have so long desired. This wondrous salutation and appearance troubled Mary. The angel then assured her that she had found favour with God, and would become the mother of a son whose name she should call Jesus, the Son of the Highest, one in a nature and perfection with the Lord God. JESUS! the name that refreshes the fainting spirits of humbled sinners; sweet to speak and sweet to hear, Jesus, a Saviour! We know not his riches and our own poverty, therefore we run not to him; we perceive not that we are lost and perishing, therefore a Saviour is a word of little relish. Were we convinced of the huge mass of guilt that lies upon us, and the wrath that hangs over us for it, ready to fall upon us, it would be our continual thought, Is the Saviour mine? And that we might find him so, we should trample on all that hinders our way to him. Mary's reply to the angel was the language of faith and humble admiration, and she asked no sign for the confirming her faith. Without controversy, great was the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh, 1Ti 3:16. Christ's human nature must be produced so, as it was fit that should be which was to be taken into union with the Divine nature. And we must, as Mary here, guide our desires by the word of God. In all conflicts, let us remember that with God nothing is impossible; and as we read and hear his promises, let us turn them into prayers, Behold the willing servant of the Lord; let it be unto me according to thy word.

    I believe the Vulgate's rendering, "full of grace" (luke 1:28),as many translations and commentaries show,is incorrect and has been taken abundant advantage of by the Romish Church. As the mother of our Lord, she was the most "blessed among women" in external distinction, but not sinless. Let them listen to the Lord's own words. "Nay, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it." (See on [1537]Lu 11:27).

    God bless.

72. David Castlen says on Jan 28, 2009 @ 04:34 AM:

    There seems to be some agreement here with the undersanding of the word. Here is another explanation along with what the early church understood as the meaning:

    
    The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)
    ________________________________________
    The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)
    by pfairban at the Catholic-Convert.com discussion board
    For a FULL ARTICLE on the Theology and History of the Immaculate Conception
    This is kind of a return to an old thread. The main point here is that, just as the man Christ Jesus is excepted from original sin (including original sin as described in various places in Romans, with such statements by St. Paul as "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and "death passed to all men because all have sinned") and just as that fact can be demonstrated from specific Scriptural verses when those verses are correctly understood, Mary is excepted from original sin and this fact can be demonstrated from specific verses. One well-known verse that shows this is Luke 1:28, and particularly the angel Gabriel's salutation to Mary: "Chaire, Kecharitomene" (translated in the Latin Vulgate "Hail, Full of Grace").
    Tangent time: In the old thread, one of our wizened protestant fellow-travelers pointed out that the word Gabriel uses when saluting Mary, "Kecharitomene" is formed from the same root (charitoo) as a word used in one of the great early Christian hymns (I wish that the Catholic hymn writers would do a modern version, they actually are pretty good at doing Scripturally-based hymns). The hymn appears in the first chapter of Ephesians (ironically, the letter to the Ephesians was probably written by Luke, as well, but this hymn probably was not, it probably pre-existed the letter). There, the relevant stanza is
    "for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved" (Ephesians 1:6).
    The variant of charitoo here is echaritosen. While Kecharitomene is, according to everything I've read, a perfect passive participle, echaritosen is an indicative active aorist; so, while Kecharitomene indicates, according to www.ao.net/~fmoeller/zchxxxi.htm (talking about perfect passive participles in a different context and a different verse; brackets indicate where I am inserting "graced" for the word in the relevant text),
    "The 'perfect' action of the participle is considered to have been completed before the time of the speaker. How long before is not a consideration but the Greek verbal idea is that the action has already been completed. Time is still secondary but perfected action must imply the past in relationship to the speaker. The person using the word is confessing that the one referred to has already been [graced]."
    The Greek perfect tense denotes the present state resultant upon a past action (J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 187). http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR264.htm
    The perfect tense in Greek is a past tense with a special meaning: it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present. http://www.pcea.asn.au/WPG/Christ_Crucified.htm
    The word "saved" is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a perfect passive participle. It means that this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present. http://newsletters.cephasministry.com/bible2-11.98.html
    Perfect passive participle, so things in a state of having been already forbidden.
    http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/
    So, here's what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us "Kecharitomene" denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:
    " 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)
    "It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).
    However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).
    see http://members.aol.com/johnprh/conception.html
    And our friend's citation of what the term denotes:
    "to bestow grace, to show favor to someone, Here it is the divine favor for a special vocation..." (Fritz Rieneker/Cleon Rogers in their Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament)
    Ironically, that final definition is essentially coextensive with the Catholic understanding of the why of Mary's sinlessness --

    Supreme Reason for the Privilege: The Divine Maternity
    "And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds."
    Pope Pius IX, Ineffibilis Deus, see http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
    However, I still haven't really gotten to my argument: whatever the denotation of "chaire, Kecharitomene," its connotation, what it actually meant to ancient Greek-speakers, is why it is communicating precisely that Mary was immaculately conceived.
    The Greek Fathers
    Here are a number of ancient experts and what they say it means; each of them is a Greek-speaker from a culture basically identical to that of St. Luke; there are a couple repeats from the previous thread, but from them I give new material, too; the passages are expositions by the authors of the meaning of Luke 1:28, generally centered on chaire, Kecharitomene:

    Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD):
    O purest one
    O purest virgin
    where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered. Where divine grace is present
    the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit
    in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship, and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man's common standard
    thou hast put on the vesture of purity
    has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;
    and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb
    since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one, and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other: and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold
    Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD):
    Hail, O you, through whom Joy will shine forth!
    Hail, O you, through whom the curse will disappear!
    Hail, O Restoration of the Fallen Adam!
    Hail, O Redemption of the Tears of Eve!
    Hail, O Peak above the reach of human thought!
    Hail, O Depth even beyond the sight of angels!
    Hail, O you who have become a Kingly Throne!
    Hail, O you who carry Him Who Carries All!
    Hail, O Star who manifest the Sun!
    Hail, O Womb of the Divine Incarnation!
    Hail, O you through whom creation is renewed!
    Hail, O you through whom the Creator becomes a Babe!
    Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!
    Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD):
    Hail, our desirable gladness;
    Hail, O rejoicing of the churches;
    Hail, O name that breates out sweetness;
    Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace;
    Hail, most venerable memory;
    Hail, O spiritual and saving fleece;
    Hail, O Mother of unsetting splendor, filled with light;
    Hail, unstained Mother of holiness;
    Hail, most limpid font of the lifegiving wave;
    Hail, new Mother, workshop of the birth.

    Hail, ineffable mother of a mystery beyond understanding;
    Hail, new book of a new Scripture, of which, as Isaiah tells, angels and men are faithful witnesses;

    Hail, alabaster jar of sanctifying ointment;
    Hail, best trader of the coin of virginity;
    Hail, creature embracing your Creator;
    Hail, little container containing the Uncontainable.
    According to Fr. Luigi Gambero, author of Mary and the Fathers of the Church, "This kind of apostrophe addressed to the Virgin occurs frequently in Greek homilies of the fifth century onward; it constitutes a literary form called chairetismoi, form the Greek word chaire, which translates as 'hail' or 'rejoice' (cf. LK 1:28)."

    Romanos the Melodist (d. c. 560 AD):
    Hail, untouched Virgin! Hail, chosen spouse of God! Hail holy one! Hail, delightful and beautiful! Hail, joyful sight! Hail, unseeded earth! Hail, uncontaminate! Hail, Mother who knows not man! Hail, Virgin Bride!
    John the Theologian (c. 400 AD):
    "[T]he Lord said to his Mother, ‘Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens’" (The Falling Asleep of Mary).
    This previous one appears also to be a commentary on Luke 1:28, but that's debatable. Another one of my favorite expositions on the meaning of Kecharitomene occurs at this link, the rule for an 11th or early 12th century Greek monastery; it's too long to completely recite: http://www.doaks.org/typikaPDF/typ037.pdf

    So, there you go, what pre-industrial Greek-speakers say "Kecharitomene" means in the context of Luke 1:28.
    by pfairban at Catholic-Convert.com discussion board
    For a FULL ARTICLE on the Theology and History of the Immaculate Conception

    God bless you Rayburne, I would love to know that when you get to heaven you would be praying for me. Keep up the love of Christ; bring 'em home.

73. David Castlen says on Jan 28, 2009 @ 05:44 AM:

    There seems to be some agreement here with the undersanding of the word. Here is another explanation along with what the early church understood as the meaning:

    
    The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)
    ________________________________________
    The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)
    by pfairban at the Catholic-Convert.com discussion board
    For a FULL ARTICLE on the Theology and History of the Immaculate Conception
    This is kind of a return to an old thread. The main point here is that, just as the man Christ Jesus is excepted from original sin (including original sin as described in various places in Romans, with such statements by St. Paul as "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and "death passed to all men because all have sinned") and just as that fact can be demonstrated from specific Scriptural verses when those verses are correctly understood, Mary is excepted from original sin and this fact can be demonstrated from specific verses. One well-known verse that shows this is Luke 1:28, and particularly the angel Gabriel's salutation to Mary: "Chaire, Kecharitomene" (translated in the Latin Vulgate "Hail, Full of Grace").
    Tangent time: In the old thread, one of our wizened protestant fellow-travelers pointed out that the word Gabriel uses when saluting Mary, "Kecharitomene" is formed from the same root (charitoo) as a word used in one of the great early Christian hymns (I wish that the Catholic hymn writers would do a modern version, they actually are pretty good at doing Scripturally-based hymns). The hymn appears in the first chapter of Ephesians (ironically, the letter to the Ephesians was probably written by Luke, as well, but this hymn probably was not, it probably pre-existed the letter). There, the relevant stanza is
    "for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved" (Ephesians 1:6).
    The variant of charitoo here is echaritosen. While Kecharitomene is, according to everything I've read, a perfect passive participle, echaritosen is an indicative active aorist; so, while Kecharitomene indicates, according to www.ao.net/~fmoeller/zchxxxi.htm (talking about perfect passive participles in a different context and a different verse; brackets indicate where I am inserting "graced" for the word in the relevant text),
    "The 'perfect' action of the participle is considered to have been completed before the time of the speaker. How long before is not a consideration but the Greek verbal idea is that the action has already been completed. Time is still secondary but perfected action must imply the past in relationship to the speaker. The person using the word is confessing that the one referred to has already been [graced]."
    The Greek perfect tense denotes the present state resultant upon a past action (J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 187). http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR264.htm
    The perfect tense in Greek is a past tense with a special meaning: it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present. http://www.pcea.asn.au/WPG/Christ_Crucified.htm
    The word "saved" is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a perfect passive participle. It means that this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present. http://newsletters.cephasministry.com/bible2-11.98.html
    Perfect passive participle, so things in a state of having been already forbidden.
    http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/
    So, here's what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us "Kecharitomene" denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:
    " 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)
    "It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).
    However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).
    see http://members.aol.com/johnprh/conception.html
    And our friend's citation of what the term denotes:
    "to bestow grace, to show favor to someone, Here it is the divine favor for a special vocation..." (Fritz Rieneker/Cleon Rogers in their Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament)
    Ironically, that final definition is essentially coextensive with the Catholic understanding of the why of Mary's sinlessness --

    Supreme Reason for the Privilege: The Divine Maternity
    "And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds."
    Pope Pius IX, Ineffibilis Deus, see http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
    However, I still haven't really gotten to my argument: whatever the denotation of "chaire, Kecharitomene," its connotation, what it actually meant to ancient Greek-speakers, is why it is communicating precisely that Mary was immaculately conceived.
    The Greek Fathers
    Here are a number of ancient experts and what they say it means; each of them is a Greek-speaker from a culture basically identical to that of St. Luke; there are a couple repeats from the previous thread, but from them I give new material, too; the passages are expositions by the authors of the meaning of Luke 1:28, generally centered on chaire, Kecharitomene:

    Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD):
    O purest one
    O purest virgin
    where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered. Where divine grace is present
    the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit
    in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship, and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man's common standard
    thou hast put on the vesture of purity
    has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;
    and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb
    since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one, and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other: and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold
    Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD):
    Hail, O you, through whom Joy will shine forth!
    Hail, O you, through whom the curse will disappear!
    Hail, O Restoration of the Fallen Adam!
    Hail, O Redemption of the Tears of Eve!
    Hail, O Peak above the reach of human thought!
    Hail, O Depth even beyond the sight of angels!
    Hail, O you who have become a Kingly Throne!
    Hail, O you who carry Him Who Carries All!
    Hail, O Star who manifest the Sun!
    Hail, O Womb of the Divine Incarnation!
    Hail, O you through whom creation is renewed!
    Hail, O you through whom the Creator becomes a Babe!
    Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!
    Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD):
    Hail, our desirable gladness;
    Hail, O rejoicing of the churches;
    Hail, O name that breates out sweetness;
    Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace;
    Hail, most venerable memory;
    Hail, O spiritual and saving fleece;
    Hail, O Mother of unsetting splendor, filled with light;
    Hail, unstained Mother of holiness;
    Hail, most limpid font of the lifegiving wave;
    Hail, new Mother, workshop of the birth.

    Hail, ineffable mother of a mystery beyond understanding;
    Hail, new book of a new Scripture, of which, as Isaiah tells, angels and men are faithful witnesses;

    Hail, alabaster jar of sanctifying ointment;
    Hail, best trader of the coin of virginity;
    Hail, creature embracing your Creator;
    Hail, little container containing the Uncontainable.
    According to Fr. Luigi Gambero, author of Mary and the Fathers of the Church, "This kind of apostrophe addressed to the Virgin occurs frequently in Greek homilies of the fifth century onward; it constitutes a literary form called chairetismoi, form the Greek word chaire, which translates as 'hail' or 'rejoice' (cf. LK 1:28)."

    Romanos the Melodist (d. c. 560 AD):
    Hail, untouched Virgin! Hail, chosen spouse of God! Hail holy one! Hail, delightful and beautiful! Hail, joyful sight! Hail, unseeded earth! Hail, uncontaminate! Hail, Mother who knows not man! Hail, Virgin Bride!
    John the Theologian (c. 400 AD):
    "[T]he Lord said to his Mother, ‘Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens’" (The Falling Asleep of Mary).
    This previous one appears also to be a commentary on Luke 1:28, but that's debatable. Another one of my favorite expositions on the meaning of Kecharitomene occurs at this link, the rule for an 11th or early 12th century Greek monastery; it's too long to completely recite: http://www.doaks.org/typikaPDF/typ037.pdf

    So, there you go, what pre-industrial Greek-speakers say "Kecharitomene" means in the context of Luke 1:28.
    by pfairban at Catholic-Convert.com discussion board
    For a FULL ARTICLE on the Theology and History of the Immaculate Conception

74. David Castlen says on Jan 28, 2009 @ 09:21 AM:

    Kecharitomene: additonal clarification

    CRI's Attack on Mary: Part II

    By "Father Mateo"

    
    

    This Rock
    Volume 3, Number 9
    September 1992

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Up Front
    By Karl Keating
    Letters
    Dragnet
    
    ANY FRIEND OF GOD'S IS A FRIEND OF MINE
    By PATRICK MADRID
    CRI's ATTACK ON MARY: Part II
    By "FATHER MATEO"
    Classic Apologetics
    The Resurrection of the Body
    By Vincent McNabb, O.P.
    Verse by Verse
    New Testament Guide
    Romans
    By Antonio Fuentes
    Fathers Know Best
    Apostolic Succession
    Quick Questions

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subscribe
    Permissions
    
    

    
    III The Immaculate Conception

    
    CRI quotes Pope Pius IX in the official definition of the Immaculate Conception: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine, which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."(Ineffabilis Deus (1854).) This definition of 1854 came after centuries of widespread Christian belief, meditation on Scripture, theological debate, liturgical development, and prayer.

    In Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel calls Mary kecharitomene, "graced," "endowed with grace." Jerome, in translating this Greek word, uses the Latin circumlocution gratis plena, "full of grace." CRI accuses Jerome of mistranslation and tries to refute Karl Keating's explanation of the original kecharitomene.(Elliott Miller, "The Mary of Roman Catholicism," Christian Research Journal, Summer 1990, 14. The second part of Miller's article appeared in the Fall 1990 issue. In these notes the two parts are referred to as Part 1 and Part 2.)

    Keating writes: "This grace . . . is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as 'full' or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception. That is, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called 'full of grace' or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way. This is just what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds."(Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 269.)

    CRI's objection is brief and rests upon one text, Ephesians 1:6: "Keating is reading more into the participle kecharitomene (derived from the verb charitoo) than its scanty New Testament usage allows. charitoo is used of believers in Ephesians 1:6 without implying sinless perfection."(Part 1, 14.) This is true, but CRI's next statement is false: "There is hence nothing about Luke 1:28 that establishes the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception" [emphasis mine].(Ibid.)

    The reason why the verb in Ephesians 1:6 does not imply sinless perfection, whereas the form of the same verb in Luke 1:28 does so imply, is this: The two verb forms use different stems. Every Greek verb has up to nine distinct stems, each expressing a different modality of the verb's lexical meanings.(FH. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 108-109.) Ephesians 1:6 has the first aorist active indicative form, echaritosen, "he graced, bestowed grace." This form, based on an aorist stem, expresses momentary action,(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166. ) action simply brought to pass.(Smyth, sec. 1852:c:1.) It cannot express or imply any fullness of bestowing because "the aorist tense . . . does not show . . . completion with permanent result."(Ibid., sec. 1852:c, note.)

    
    It's Greek to CRI

    
    Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the "continuance of a completed action";(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) "completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem."(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." This becomes clearer when we examine other New Testament examples of verbs in the perfect tense:(The next three examples are taken from Blass and DeBrunner, 175-176.)

    1. "He has defiled this sacred place" (Acts 21:28)--their entrance in the past produced defilement as a lasting effect.

    2. "The son of the slave woman was born according to the flesh" (Gal. 4:23)--the perfect with reference to an Old Testament event can mean it retains its exemplary effect.

    3. "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" 1 Cor. 9:1, Acts 22:15)--that Paul has seen the Lord is what establishes him permanently as an apostle.

    Other examples I found:

    1. "God spoke to Moses" (John 9:29)--the Pharisees hold that the Mosaic Law still and always holds.

    2. "It is finished" (John 19:30)--the work of redemption culminating in the passion and death of Christ is complete and forever enduring .

    3 "He rose on the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4)--unlike Lazarus who was raised from the dead but must die again, Christ rose to everlasting life.

    4. "All things have been created through him and for him" (Col. 1:16)--all creation continually exists, upheld by God (this is the teaching of God's universal providence and also the refutation of deism).

    Here are examples, like kechari-tomene, of perfect participles in the New Testament:

    1. "To the praise of his glorious grace, which he bestowed on us in his beloved"(Eph. 1:6)--Christ is perfectly, completely, endlessly loved by his Father.

    2. "Blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:42)--Christ is perfectly and endlessly blessed by God.

    
    Because Luke 1:28 uses the perfect participle kecharitomene to describe Mary, CRI is wrong to say there is nothing in this verse to establish the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. One word of one Bible verse does not prove the doctrine, but kecharitomene proves the harmony of the doctrine with Scripture.

    Did Jerome goof?

    
    CRI, you will remember, accuses Jerome of mistranslating kecharito-mene with gratis plena, "full of grace." This is not nitpicking on CRI's part, and for two reasons: The phrase "full of grace" has guided many centuries of Catholic theological thought since Jerome, and some modern Catholic writers are of the opinion that gratis plena is a mistranslation. Against these Catholics and CRI I contend that gratis plena is not a mistranslation. It is an extremely happy phrase, as close to the Greek as Latin can come and much to be preferred to modern efforts to improve it: "favored one" (NAB [1986], RSV), "highly favored" (NIV), and the monstrosity, "highly favored daughter" (NAB [1970]).

    Latin, when compared to Greek, seems to be an extremely awkward language. It is word-poor and has suffered considerable form-erosion. Specifically here, Latin has no verb that means what charitoo does in Greek.

    But using the resources that Latin does have, Jerome expresses the root meaning of charitoo by the Latin noun gratis ("grace," "favor") and the amplitude and completeness of the Greek perfect tense by the Latin adjective plena ("full"). The Latin phrase does not well connote permanent condition, as the Greek perfect participle does.

    Catholics are not alone in this reading of kecharitomene. In his Personal Prayer Book (1522), Luther wrote, "She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her."(Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther's Works (St. Louis: Concordia), vol. 43, 40.)

    Max Thurian, while still Protestant, wrote, "In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity. Whatever the theological position which we may hold today in regard to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, . . . these two Catholic dogmas were accepted by certain Reformers, not of course in their present form, but certainly in the form that was current in their day."(Max Thurian, Mary, Mother of All Christians (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964), 197.)

    
    Given this premise . . .

    
    CRI says, "By virtue of his divine nature and his virgin birth (through which God, rather than a son of Adam, was his Father), Christ dwelt among us as One free from sin. . . ."(Part 1, 14.) The implication is that Christ is sinless partly because he had no human father, no (sinful) son of Adam in his lineage. Given this premise one might think CRI should conclude that the Immaculate Conception is necessary: How could he be untouched by sin who would draw his human nature from a sinful mother? But this would be bad theology. The true reason for Christ's freedom from sin is the hypostatic union, which he shares with no other human being. Christ unites two natures, the divine and the human, in one divine Person.

    It is this union which makes him, in CRI's words, "the only human who perfectly represents the holy character of the Father,"(Ibid.) "the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being" (Heb. 1:3), "for in him dwells the whole fullness of the Deity bodily" (Col. 2:9). The hypostatic union anoints Jesus as our unique Messiah and Savior, our prophet, king, and priest, for the fullness of deity, which dwells in Jesus, dwells there for us: "Of his fullness we have all received" (John 1:16); "you share in this fullness in him, who is the head" (Col. 2:10).

    Thurian wrote, before his conversion to the Catholic faith, "In Christ the Beloved . . . we are filled with the grace of God. . . . Mary, thus receiving the title of 'full of grace,' is at the same time placed in a privileged relationship of sharing in his fullness of grace, which is found in the Beloved, and united with all Christians, who can also find in Christ this same fullness. However, Mary receives this state as a title: That is to say, she becomes, as it were, a living and sure sign of this fullness of grace, which has its origin only in Christ himself."(Thurian, 21.)

    In conclusion CRI quotes Romans 11:32, "God has imprisoned all in disobedience that he might have mercy on all," and avers that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception violates this "basic biblical principle." In fact, we are told: "To suggest that even one other person besides Christ was born [sic] without sin is to diminish the tremendous significance of the Incarnation."(Part 1, 14.) Aside from the fact that CRI forgets about Adam and Eve, who were created sinless and lived the first part of their lives sinlessly (Gen. 1:31), CRI's argument does not follow, for two reasons.

    First, Mary is not by her own power, virtue, or merit sinless. It was not her merits but those of her Son which were applied to her at her conception. The primacy and necessity of the Incarnation and Christ's fullness are not diminished by Mary's Immaculate Conception, because more than any other human being, she received of his fullness (John 1:16).

    Second, as a child of Adam and Eve, Mary shares our fallen condition de jure. But de facto she was rescued from it at her conception. All was grace, but in her grace was preventive medicine. For us it is therapeutic, healing the actual damage of sin. CRI's proof texts (disproof texts?) do not disprove the Immaculate Conception.(The texts are Ecclesiastes 7:20, Galatians 3:22, Romans 3:23, 5:12, 11:32.)

    Mary's perfect fullness of grace was in God's plan necessary to what the Protestant theologian de Satge calls "the awesome demands of her particular motherhood, without detaching that perfection from the grace that came by her Son."(John de Satge, Down to Earth: The New Protestant Vision of the Virgin Mary (Consortium, 1976), 73.)

    
    IV The Assumption

    
    On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII defined the doctrine of the Assumption in these words: "We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."(Munificentissimus Deus, 44.)

    "Revealed dogma" here means "a fact contained within the deposit of revelation given to us by God, now solemnly proposed by the Pope to be believed as such by all the faithful.(Lawrence P. Everett, "Mary's Death and Bodily Assumption" in J. Carol, Mariology, vol. 2, 461.)

    Mary is the first disciple, the pattern and type in faith and obedience of all the rest, Mother and first member of the Church. In her Assumption we see the pledge, the first fruits of our own glorious destiny. We celebrate, in the fact of her Assumption, her personal privilege and our promised glory. The mystery of the Assumption is a mystery of and for the whole Church.

    "In the most holy Virgin, the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle" (Eph. 5:27).(Lumen Gentium, 65.) "We think that she, who has preceded the Church by her faith, she who preceded the Church in union with Christ, she who was there with Christ for the birth of the sacramental and hierarchical Church, preceded it also in its eternal destiny."(M.-J. Nicholas, "Protestants, Catholics, and Mary," Marian Studies 90 (March 1962), 7.)

    
    Whistleblowing

    
    Many writers have noted the absence of historical record for the Assumption of Mary. Explicit historical and, indeed, liturgical testimony for the belief is lacking before the Syriac "transitus" fragment at the end of the fifth century and the Coptic liturgy, brought to the West by Cassian in the mid-sixth century.

    There are also the imaginative tales called the "apocrypha." CRI says, "Since there was no authentic information [about the life and death of Mary], imagination ran wild creating legends."(Part 1, 14., quoting Victor Buksbazen, Miriam the Virgin of Nazareth (Philadelphia: Spearhead Press, 1963), 196.) "[T]here is nothing of any historical value in such apoc-ryphal works."(Part 1, 15, quoting Karl Rahner, Mary, Mother of the Lord (London: Anthony Clarke Books, 1963), 16.) "[The apocrypha] are filled with fantastic, absurd miracles, were written in poor taste, and contain bad theology. Yet historians recognize them to be the source from which the doctrine of Mary's assumption arose."(Part 1, 15.)

    Here I must blow the whistle. "Historians" who venture to engage in theology are straying from their field. Historians as such are not competent to make theological judgments. The Assumption is a theological datum and must be proved or disproved on theological, not historical grounds. The availability of historical evidence or the absence of it is strictly irrelevant to this discussion. Still more irrelevant, therefore, is the historical uselessness of the apocrypha. Pope Pius XII made no mention of the apocrypha in his definition of the Assumption. The doctrine and its definition do not rest on them.

    
    The only interest of the apocrypha is that "they witness a popular belief among the faithful [of the fifth century] in the Assumption."(Everett, 483.) The apocrypha grew from this belief, not the belief from the apocrypha. The Anglican scholar Thomas Mozley writes, "The belief was never founded on that story. The story was founded on the belief. The belief, which was universal, required a definite shape, and that shape at length it found."(Thomas Mozley, Reminiscences of Oriel College and the Oxford Movement (London: Farnborough, Gregg, 1969), vol. 2, 368.)

    J. Carol writes, "As historical accounts . . . [the apocrypha] are valueless. But theologically . . . they evidence the first unequivocal solutions to the problem of Mary's destiny. The solutions . . . disclose a genuinely Christian insight: It was not fitting that the body of Mary should see corruption. More importantly, the solution is given, incorruption is postulated, on theological lines: The principles of solution are the divine maternity, Mary's unimpaired virginity, her unrivaled holiness."(J. Carol, Mariology, vol. 2, 145-146.)

    The "fittingness" argument

    
    CRI attacks: "The actual basis for the doctrine of the Assumption is a form of logic often employed in Catholic theology . . . God can do all things; it is proper that it should be so (e.g., that Mary should be assumed); therefore, God did it."(Part 1, 15.) This is the "argument from fittingness," to which CRI objects, alleging that theologians who use it assume they know what is proper to God, whereas God's thoughts and ways are not the those of man (Is. 55:8-9).

    The argument from fittingness has an honorable pedigree, which should be respected. The argument is implicit in the Bible itself. Look at Hebrews 2:10 and 7:26, for example. Furthermore, the argument is properly used, not as a substantive proof of a doctrine, but as a supportive suasion to a doctrine already proved. Fittingness is not invented by theologians. It comes to light by the working of the Holy Spirit in the Church, guiding it into the whole truth.

    "The Church [sees] the Assumption . . . implicitly contained within the complete notion of the divine maternity. 'The Church sees it there, not as the result of a logical deduction, still less as mere fittingness, but as one element of that miracle of miracles which God willed his Mother to be. The Church sees it with a supernatural insight imparted by the divine Spirit who dwells within her.'"(Everett, 475. )

    "When the Church defines a truth, it does not canonize human logic. It defines because, under the guidance of the Spirit of truth, it discerns the truth. . . . It supposes a supernatural illumination proceeding from faith, grace, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, a supernatural insight enabling the believer to discern, in fellowship with the Church, the implications of revelation proposed to him by the magisterium."(Cyril Vollert, A Theology of Mary (New York: Herder and Herder, 1965), 233-234.)

    
    Did Jesus break his promise?

    
    Catholics accept the teachings of the magisterium because we believe in Jesus Christ and in the great promises he made to us about the work the Holy Spirit does in the Church: "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you" John 14:26); "When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth" (John 16:13). Without qualification, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), a divine promise that has failed if the Church has ever fallen or could fall into error in Christian doctrine. To think that Jesus could not, did not, or never intended to make good on these promises, that he left his Church to fall into any error whatever of doctrine or morality, is to question his power, his goodness, his truthfulness, and ultimately his divinity.

    Paul teaches that the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). He teaches that the relation of Christ to his Church is that of bridegroom to bride (Eph. 5:23-32). This teaching is true, and the Scripture cannot be broken: "The Church is subordinate to Christ" (v. 24)--not was or may be or ought to have been--but is. "Christ nourishes and cherishes the Church as his own flesh" (v. 29). Christ and the Church are one. Genesis 2:24, "the two of them become one flesh," used of man and wife in their marriage covenant, finds its ultimate meaning and fulfillment in the union between Christ and his Church. This "great mystery" (v. 32) is precisely the marriage covenant between Christ and his Church.

    
    There are some who accuse the Catholic Church of apostasy from Christ and his teachings. It is he and his teachings that refute that charge. It is profoundly unbiblical to suggest that at some point in the third or fourth century or whenever (opponents are vague on their calendar of events) Christ the bridegroom divorced his Church-bride on grounds of infidelity (from which he had promised to preserve her), lived a bachelor for about 1200 years, and then married more than 22,000 denominations.(Martin Marty of the University of Chicago Divinity School gives this number in U.S. News and World Report, March 4, 1991, 51.)

    The Holy Spirit has been given to us and abides in us. God's gifts are irrevocable. "It is not that the word of God has failed . . . for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 9:6, 11:29). At this point, the infallibility of revelation meets the infallibility of the teaching Church, both guaranteed by the same Spirit: "The Holy Spirit, who revealed in the apostles, ever afterwards assists in the Church, that the Church may remember the truth in entirety, penetrate it deeply, and teach it alone."(Vollert, 227-228.)

    How CRI begs the question

    
    CRI moves on: "The [Catholic] church's first error was to regard its tradition as equal in authority to the Word of God. The second and potentially lethal error is to 'absolutize' the church's interpretation of both."(Part 1, 15.) Here the article begs this question: Is the Word of God synonymous and coterminous with written Scripture, as found in the books of the Old and New Testaments? Is Scripture alone (sola scriptura) the Word of God and the repository of all his revelation? No, it is not. The revealed Word of God is contained in both Scripture and oral Tradition.

    Writing to the Thessalonians, Paul says: "He has also called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2:14-15). Here the apostle equates his gospel, i.e., the Word of God that he has taught, with traditions.

    Then he distinguishes and divides these traditions into two: oral statement (oral Tradition) and letter (written Tradition), the latter of which in time would come to be recognized by the Church as sacred Scripture. CRI's error is to reject this Bible teaching, which witnesses to the equal dignity of oral and written Tradition.

    Furthermore, in an important way, oral tradition holds the primacy. The earliest Christians until about A.D. 51 had none of the books of the New Testament, for none had yet been written. Of course, they had the Old Testament, but the whole message of Jesus and about Jesus was preserved as oral Tradition. The Church, then as now, regarded this Tradition as "equal in authority to the Word of God." Its Tradition about Jesus at that time was the New Covenant Word of God.

    When New Testament Scripture was finally formed, it had to be recognized as such by the Church. This took considerable time. Nowhere in the written books of Scripture do we read the titles of the inspired books. Scripture does not provide its own canon--the Church did that, following its oral Tradition.

    Nowhere in any book of the Old or the New Testament is the principle sola scriptura (Scripture as the only source of revelation) to be found. This principle was invented centuries later and so falls under the stricture of Galatians 1:6-10. It must be rejected if one wishes to follow the teachings of the Bible.

    
    Who is the "absolutizer"?

    
    CRI has rebuked the Church for "absolutizing" both Scripture and Tradition by defining doctrine, particularly the doctrine of Mary's Assumption. Now, fair is fair. If the Church in its earliest days absolutized its interpretations, which were the interpretations of its official teachers, the apostles, then it can and in fact it must do so today.

    There is an important distinction to be made here, though: The deposit of revelation was complete upon the death of the last apostle. The Church from that day proposes no new doctrine, but only works out the implications of the revelation entrusted to the apostles--and there must be implications for thinking people. The Church is thus the scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, like the head of a household who brings forth from his storeroom both the new and the old (Matt. 13:52).

    From the very beginning, the Church, by its teaching authority, residing in the apostles and their successors, developed the implications of its doctrine and absolutized its oral Tradition. (Remember that at the beginning, from the first Pentecost, the Church had only oral Tradition about Jesus and his teaching.)

    Read the tenth, eleventh, and fifteenth chapters of Acts. In 10:9-16 Peter received a vision in which God revoked the Jewish kosher food laws. Shocked and doubtful, Peter pondered the vision. He became the type and figure of the Church's magisterium as it ponders the meaning of revelation. Peter then received a delegation of Gentiles, sent to beg him to come and visit the centurion Cornelius, a Gentile, in his home (vv. 17-23).

    Why did he go with them, though it was "unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile" (v. 28)? He went because "God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean" (v. 28). Peter here has engaged in the development of doctrine. His vision had to do with animals. By his apostolic authority Peter drew forth the vision's implication that no person is unclean.

    Later in Jerusalem, the Christians of the Judaizing faction confronted and rebuked Peter (11:2-3). He explained what had happened and so silenced them. As the events in Acts 10 and 11 were going on, everything was done orally. Writing it all down under divine inspiration, as Luke later did, did not increase its validity. Oral and written Tradition are equally valid, then as now. Acts 10 and 11 show that it is unbiblical to deny this.

    Acts 15 is a nice mix of oral and written tradition: James quotes Old Testament Scripture (Amos 9:11-12), and the apostles and presbyters (the magisterium) write a letter, now a part of the New Testament, thanks to Luke and God's inspiration. There is plenty of discussion (oral Tradition), which Luke wove later into his narrative, thus making it written Tradition or Scripture.

    
    CRI is correct on one point . . .

    
    CRI misconstrues the facts and draws erroneous conclusions. Yet I agree with CRI on at least one point: What the Catholic Church does is lethal--not "lethal error," as CRI says, but lethal truth. The exercise of the Church's infallible mission slays the errors of sola scriptura, of private interpretation, and of general doctrinal muddleheadedness.

75. Mike says on Jan 28, 2009 @ 06:30 PM:

    Please, David, I surrender!

    I really appreciate all your work and your spirited defense of all things RC, but all I want to know is if the Pope is really saying that justification is by faith in Christ, without works, as long as faith is not separated from "charity." Can we take this at face value (as the Bible indicates), or must we add something else according to Rome?

76. Rayburne says on Jan 28, 2009 @ 08:52 PM:

    How is the weather down there? I have been shovelling snow all day. The pile is already about 10 feet at the peak in front of the house. I'm soon going to run out of space to put it.

    Well, David, you have gone through some pains and trouble to give biblical, linguistic (Greek)and theological support (via expositions of "ancient experts" in early Catholic history) for the Catholic interpretation of Luke 1:28,supposedly, to give some credibility to the Catholic doctrine of the the Immaculate Conception of Mary. However, as I already indicated, I strongly believe the Vulgate's rendering, "full of grace" (Luke 1:28),as many translations and commentaries show (see my previous comment),is a serious mistake that has been taken abundant advantage of by the Romish Church. As the mother of our Lord, she was the most "blessed among women" in external distinction, but not sinless, as I believe Mary undeniably acknowledged in that same chapter and context of Luke 1 when, in verses 46-47 (announcing to Elizabeth the glorious news of her pregnancy with Jesus, the Messiah) she said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour" (Luke 1:46-47). Now, scripture consistently teaches that only a sinner needs a Saviour (see Matthew 9:13; Romans 5:8; 5:19; 1 Timothy 1:15, etc.), so Mary, by acknowledging Christ to be her ("my") Saviour, was undeniably admitting that she was a sinner in need of a Saviour. If you take the straightforward meaning of Luke 1:46-47 (it truly would be, as you put it, “doctrinal muddleheadedness” not to do so), this is the only sensible and biblical conclusion one can make, as most parallel commentaries agree:

    People's New Testament
    1:47 My Saviour. Mary, by this word, reckons herself among that which was lost. She obtained salvation, not from herself, but from Jesus. (Bengel).

    Wesley's Notes
    1:47 My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour - She seems to turn her thoughts here to Christ himself, who was to be born of her, as the angel had told her, he should be the Son of the Highest, whose name should be Jesus, the Saviour. And she rejoiced in hope of salvation through faith in him, which is a blessing common to all true believers, more than in being his mother after the flesh, which was an honour peculiar to her. And certainly she had the same reason to rejoice in God her Saviour hat we have: because he had regarded the low estate of his handmaid, in like manner as he regarded our low estate; and vouchsafed to come and save her and us, when we were reduced to the lowest estate of sin and misery.

    Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
    47. my Saviour-Mary, poor heart, never dreamt, we see, of her own "immaculate conception"-in the offensive language of the Romanists-any more than of her own immaculate life.

    Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
    1:39-56 It is very good for those who have the work of grace begun in their souls, to communicate one to another. On Mary's arrival, Elisabeth was conscious of the approach of her who was to be the mother of the great Redeemer. At the same time she was filled with the Holy Ghost, and under his influence declared that Mary and her expected child were most blessed and happy, as peculiarly honoured of and dear to the Most High God. Mary, animated by Elisabeth's address, and being also under the influence of the Holy Ghost, broke out into joy, admiration, and gratitude. She knew herself to be a sinner who needed a Saviour, and that she could no otherwise rejoice in God than as interested in his salvation through the promised Messiah. Those who see their need of Christ, and are desirous of righteousness and life in him, he fills with good things, with the best things; and they are abundantly satisfied with the blessings he gives. He will satisfy the desires of the poor in spirit who long for spiritual blessings, while the self-sufficient shall be sent empty away.

    Now, you might reply that I am making a big deal of this passage, but certainly no more than you are making of Luke 1:28, in contradiction to the plain scriptural teaching of only one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (I Tim. 2:5) and one only sinless Redeemer (Eph. Rom. 3:24, etc.) and, unlike Luke 1:28, the translation of Luke 1:46-47 is not disputed (not even by the Catholic Bible ( Douay-Rheims Bible “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”) and most commentaries (with the exception of Catholic commentaries, of course) agree that Mary, by declaring Christ as her (“my”) Saviour, was indeed acknowledging herself to be a sinner in need of a Saviour.

    You are reading far too much into scripture, David, rather than accept the clear, straightforward meaning of what scripture says. To exempt Mary from original sin in opposition to numerous biblical texts (not just Romans 3:23; 5:12; 5:18, but also Isaiah 53:6 , Isaiah 64:6; 1 Tim. 2:5 ; Acts 4:12, etc.) on the basis of one strongly disputed verse (the only specific verse you mentioned) is not only contrary to sound biblical principles of interpretation (hermeneutics), it is bad exegesis. You don’t compromise the clear meaning of established texts or doctrine that teach the universality of original sin on the entire human race (I.e Rom.3:23; 5:12; 5:18; Isaiah 53:6; 64:6; etc.) in order to accommodate the interpretation of one highly disputed biblical passage (Luke 1:28, both in meaning and translation from the original Greek) by the Latin Vulgate . The meaning of a highly disputed passage must be carefully and biblically interpreted in the light of clearly established doctrine (not vice versa), both contextually and in harmony with the already clear and well established meaning of other biblical texts (I.e Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 5:18; Isaiah 53:6; 64:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Acts 4:12).

    Hymns and commentaries do not equal inspired scripture. They may reflect biblical truth, and the they might not. The same goes for the expositions of “ancient experts,” especially when they regard tradition to be on equal footing with (or above ) scriptural authority).

    I must state that most orthodox Greek scholars would not even interpret, as the Latin Vulgate does, the Angel Gabriel's statement, as :"Hail, full of grace the Lord is with you!" (Lk 1:28) much less imply from a highly disputed translation that Mary was sinless. Indeed, allowing scripture to interpret scripture, it is contrary to all sound principles of hermeneutics and sound biblical exegesis to build a doctrine that so enormous in its implications on an obscure, isolated passage, when there are numberous verses, as I have clearly stated (I.e. 1 Pet.1:18-19; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 3:24;1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21, etc.) that consistently refer to one only sinless Redeemer--the Lord Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ (not Mary) is the only assured way to God is explicitly stated in John 14:6: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." NO, this exclusive claim of Christ that He is is the only assured way to the Father ("No one comes to the Father except through Me") is confirmed by 1 Timothy 2:5 (scripture interprets scripture): "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." The Holy Spirit,Who inspired the writers to convey God's infallible and inerrant truth in His inscripturated Word, and Who cannot lie, would not deliberately lead sinners astray by such a statement that there is "One Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus," if, in fact, there were actually two Mediators (Christ Jesus and Mary, Co-Mediatress with Jesus).Indeed, if that is not clear enough for anyone to understand, then, nothing could be clearer than the explicit statement in Acts 4:12: "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." "No other name," referring to Jesus Christ (read verses 10 and 11 preceding it in the same context)certainly rules out Mary as a "sinless, co-Redeemer with Jesus Christ in salvation. How dare we distort and pervert the clear meaning of God'e holy Word by reading into scripture (eisegesis) what it explicitly and definitely does not teach. Read John 12:48: He who rejects Me, and does not receive my words (as they are clearly stated in scripture, John 14:6; John 10:9;etc. ), has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day."

    You state: "The excerise of the Church’s infallible mission slays the errors of sola scriptura, of private interpretations and of general doctrinal muddleheadedness”. Quite the contrary: "The exercise of the church’s infallible mission slays the biblical error of a teaching “magisterium” that supposedly is invested with the authority to bind the conscience of fellow believers in the body (= the church) of Christ, as to the meaning of scripture." In 2 Thess. 2:14-15, specifically the words, “stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught,” Paul is not placing tradition on either an equal footing with scripture, or above scriptural authority. The clear purpose and context of 2 Thess. 2 (read it) is to warn the Thessalonian believers (2 Thess.2:1) of false doctrine (apostasy), which has crept into the church, wherefore he admonishes believers there to “stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle". In other words, to safeguard sound biblical doctrine from error by holding fast to the biblical truth they were taught by word (tradition) or by epistle (the Bible). For example, when the scribes and pharisees ask Jesus in Matthew 15:2: "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? (they did ot wash their hand before eating bread), Jesus replied (verse 3), "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? Then, Jesus goes on to tell them: "Thus you have made the commandment of God (God's infallible authoritative truth) of no effect by your tradition" (Matt.15:6).

    As I have already indicated,I do not distance myself from tradition, but, like most protestants, I place scripture in its proper place in relation to scripture, not equal to scriptural authority and not above scriptural authority. Where abuses have occurred in the past, especially prior to the reformation, as history attests, is when state religion becomes the law of the land (as we have seen in England and Spain) and compelled dissenters from other religions to comply with its established traditions, by force if necessary (i.e the bloodshed and tyranny of the bloody inquisition in Spain and the persecution of those outside the state Church of England. Yes, many did not know how to read the scriptures for themselves at this time and England and Spain were the worst for it thankGod for the soul liberty of evry believer to interpret scripture for himself). That is why the Pilgrims and others who could read left England for religious freedom in the American colonies, later to become the United States.

    The Reformation restored the Gospel that had been corrupted and lost for hundreds of years and, beginning with men like Luther, Wycliffe and Tyndale translated the scriptures into the languages of the common people, so that no individual need suffer from the abuse of ignornance and exploitation by any church hierarchy (or magisterium) by way of tradition enforced by the state. All true believers are members of Christ body--His Church (1 Corinthians 12:13) through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

    This "universal church" comprises all true believers from every visible denomination--not necessarily one visible religious affiliation on earth;namely, the RCC.

    Apostolic succession is properly the succession of the apostolic gospel, when the original deposit of apostolic truth is passed from one generation to another: “faithful men…to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:2). A church is apostolic as it recognizes in practice the supreme authority of the apostolic scriptures.

    Contrary to what you stated, history clearly shows that it was state churches (i.e the Catholic and Church of England) that were most corrupted by their traditions and councils, and it is they that need to rethink their tradition (which I hope that is what Pope Benedict is attempting to do to some extent) because, when it comes to such an important matter as how one is justified in the sight of a Holy and Righteous God, we cannot afford to be wrong.

    On that serious note, I would also like to know, as Mike already asked, if the Pope is really saying that justification is by faith in Christ, without works, as long as faith is not separated from "charity." Can we take this at face value (as the Bible indicates), or must we add something else according to Rome? God bless.

77. David Castlen says on Jan 29, 2009 @ 09:38 AM:

    My brother just called me from Ky. He said I was the first person he is able to contact. The power is out all over Wester Ky and parts of So. Indiana. He said all night he heard explosions like one hears on the nature shows when Ice is falling from ice burges then the sound was followed by the sound of incoming shells - not mortars. Big big bangs! He said people all over town heard these sounds! I quit the paper a few weeks ago and only listen to fishing shows and football: I figure I should be open to God's sports.

    I do want to get back to the Pope's comments. But I am drawn into the Material Fallacy of argueing an unrelated point when I hear my Mother Mary being cut a notch down. As much as I would love to defend her (in the small way I can) I will go back to the Pope's comment: the purpose of this dialogue.

    Dominus vobis cum

78. Rayburne says on Jan 30, 2009 @ 07:31 PM:

    David, I want you to understand that actually I hold Mary to be highly favoured by God, but not someone who was sinless and not someone to worship (which I believe to be a grave error). Indeed, I discovered something that I didn’t know before looking up Luke 1:28 on the internet. The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament (with the exception, of course, of the disputed translation and meaning of this expression in luke 1:28 by the Latin Vulgate). Neither one is in reference to Mary.

    "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).

    "And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

    The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the Crucified and Risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins (John 1:29). In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin (2 Corinth. 5:21; 1 Peter 1:21-22) and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not! The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness simply by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3,5). But Stephen was a sinner. I thought it was worth pointing out.
    
    I’m not out to attack or condemn anyone’s faith or religion. That judgment is reserved alone for Jesus Christ,the Judge of us all (2 Timothy 4:1; 1 Chronicles 16:33). I’m only interested in the truth, which I believe resides in the One who said He is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6). I believe you are, too. Jesus said, “ And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). It has been my experience, David, that the one thing the Enemy of our souls uses more than anything else to keep sinners in spiritual darkness and bondage is religion; specifically, pride of religion, because Satan knows that the surest way to deceive people (see 2 Corinth. 4:3-4) is to give them just enough religion (a false security) to keep them from coming to the only One (Christ) Who can set them free and give them that true peace and assurance of sins forgiven, of eternal life and a home in heaven when they die. Sad to say, despite the multiple millions who can testify to the life-changing power of the Gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16) to transform lives and give them true peace and assurance of sins forgiven and the certainity of eternal life and a home in heaven when they die, there are also multiple millions who deny the possibility of such genuine assurance of knowing one is truly saved in this life, even though scripture explicitly teaches this is not only possible (1 John 5:13; Romans 10:9-13; Ephesians 2:8-10; Matthew 1:21;1 Corinthians 15:2; etc.) but absolutely necessary (see Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 1:15; John 12:47;etc.).

    This is my only motivation for contributing in some small way to this discussion and the reason Mike and I (and many others) are very concerned about the Pope’s statement on justification and for some lucid clarification as to its exact meaning from a biblical standpoint. God bless.

79. John J. Nursing-Student says on Feb 1, 2009 @ 05:45 PM:

    Holy mackerel, Kingfish! I think Dr. Craig is trying to set a new world record for sheer volume of responses to a blog. I haven't joined in much because I sort of got off my debating kick years ago, but from what I've read it seems to be an interesting discussion!

80. David Castlen says on Feb 3, 2009 @ 01:16 PM:

    Rayburne et al

    Here is my final thrust at this topic. I so hope that you (all) will know one day the ectasy of heaven on earth in The Mass, where time stops and joy fills the air to those who truly believe. I have attacked as best a NUG (New Useless Guy) can these obstacles to the Mass which are provided by Mother church. If I have failed it has been because of my pride. Never the less, here are the answers to your questions regarding:
    Salvation, Hell, and Purgatory. They are all from Catholic Answers. I can do not nearly as well as they. God bless you all.

    Assurance of Salvation?

    
    There are few more confusing topics than salvation. It goes beyond the standard question posed by Fundamentalists: "Have you been saved?" What the question also means is: "Don’t you wish you had the assurance of salvation?" Evangelicals and Fundamentalists think they do have such an absolute assurance.

    All they have to do is "accept Christ as their personal Savior," and it’s done. They might well live exemplary lives thereafter, but living well is not crucial and definitely does not affect their salvation.

    Kenneth E. Hagin, a well-known Pentecostal televangelist from the "Word Faith" wing of Protestantism, asserts that this assurance of salvation comes through being "born again": "Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Though much of Hagin’s theology is considered bizarre in Protestant circles, his explanation of being born again could be endorsed by millions of Evangelical Protestants. In his booklet, The New Birth, Hagin writes, "The new birth is a necessity to being saved. Through the new birth you come into the right relationship with God."

    According to Hagin, there are many things that this new birth is not. "The new birth is not: confirmation, church membership, water baptism, the taking of sacraments, observing religious duties, an intellectual reception of Christianity, orthodoxy of faith, going to church, saying prayers, reading the Bible, being moral, being cultured or refined, doing good deeds, doing your best, nor any of the many other things some men are trusting in to save them." Those who have obtained the new birth "did the one thing necessary: they accepted Jesus Christ as personal Savior by repenting and turning to God with the whole heart as a little child." That one act of the will, he explains, is all they needed to do. But is this true? Does the Bible support this concept?

    Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

    For many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals it makes no difference—as far as salvation is concerned—how you live or end your life. You can heed the altar call at church, announce that you’ve accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, and, so long as you really believe it, you’re set. From that point on there is nothing you can do, no sin you can commit, no matter how heinous, that will forfeit your salvation. You can’t undo your salvation, even if you wanted to.

    Does this sound too good to be true? Yes, but nevertheless, it is something many Protestants claim. Take a look at what Wilson Ewin, the author of a booklet called There is Therefore Now No Condemnation, says. He writes that "the person who places his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his blood shed at Calvary is eternally secure. He can never lose his salvation. No personal breaking of God’s or man’s laws or commandments can nullify that status."

    "To deny the assurance of salvation would be to deny Christ’s perfect redemption," argues Ewin, and this is something he can say only because he confuses the redemption that Christ accomplished for us objectively with our individual appropriation of that redemption. The truth is that in one sense we are all redeemed by Christ’s death on the cross—Christians, Jews, Muslims, even animists in the darkest forests (1 Tim. 2:6, 4:10, 1 John 2:2)—but our individual appropriation of what Christ provided is contingent on our response.

    Certainly, Christ did die on the cross once for all and has entered into the holy place in heaven to appear before God on our behalf. Christ has abundantly provided for our salvation, but that does not mean that there is no process by which this is applied to us as individuals. Obviously, there is, or we would have been saved and justified from all eternity, with no need to repent or have faith or anything else. We would have been born "saved," with no need to be born again. Since we were not, since it is necessary for those who hear the gospel to repent and embrace it, there is a time at which we come to be reconciled to God. And if so, then we, like Adam and Eve, can become unreconciled with God and, like the prodigal son, need to come back and be reconciled again with God, after having left his family.

    
    You Can’t Lose Heaven?

    
    Ewin says that "no wrong act or sinful deed can ever affect the believer’s salvation. The sinner did nothing to merit God’s grace and likewise he can do nothing to demerit grace. True, sinful conduct always lessens one’s fellowship with Christ, limits his contribution to God’s work and can result in serious disciplinary action by the Holy Spirit."

    One problem with this argument is that this is not even how things work in everyday life. If another person gives us something as a grace—as a gift—and even if we did nothing to deserve it (though frequently gifts are given based on our having pleased the one bestowing the gift), it in no way follows that our actions are irrelevant to whether or not we keep the gift. We can lose it in all kinds of ways. We can misplace it, destroy it, give it to someone else, take it back to the store. We may even forfeit something we were given by later displeasing the one who gave it—as when a person has been appointed to a special position but is later stripped of that position on account of mismanagement.

    The argument fares no better when one turns to Scripture, for one finds that Adam and Eve, who received God’s grace in a manner just as unmerited as anyone today, most definitely did demerit it—and lost grace not only for themselves but for us as well (cf. also Rom. 11:17-24). While the idea that what is received without merit cannot be lost by demerit may have a kind of poetic charm for some, it does not stand up when compared with the way things really work—either in the everyday world or in the Bible.

    Regarding the issue of whether Christians have an "absolute" assurance of salvation, regardless of their actions, consider this warning Paul gave: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).

    
    Can You Know?

    
    Related to the issue of whether one can lose one’s salvation is the question of whether one can know with complete certainty that one is in a state of salvation. Even if one could not lose one’s salvation, one still might not be sure whether one ever had salvation. Similarly, even if one could be sure that one is now in a state of salvation, one might be able to fall from grace in the future. The "knowability" of salvation is a different question than the "loseability" of salvation.

    From the Radio Bible Class listeners can obtain a booklet called Can Anyone Really Know for Sure? The anonymous author says the "Lord Jesus wanted his followers to be so sure of their salvation that they would rejoice more in the expectation of heaven than in victories on earth. ‘These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God (1 John 5:13).’"

    Places where Scripture speaks of our ability to know that we are abiding in grace are important and must be taken seriously. But they do not promise that we will be protected from self-deception on this matter. Even the author of Can Anyone Really Know for Sure? admits that there is a false assurance: "The New Testament teaches us that genuine assurance is possible and desirable, but it also warns us that we can be deceived through a false assurance. Jesus declared: ‘Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 7:21)."

    Sometimes Fundamentalists portray Catholics as if they must every moment be in terror of losing their salvation since Catholics recognize that it is possible to lose salvation through mortal sin. Fundamentalists then hold out the idea that, rather than living every moment in terror, they can have a calm, assured knowledge that they will, in fact, be saved, and that nothing will ever be able to change this fact.

    But this portrayal is in error. Catholics do not live lives of mortal terror concerning salvation. True, salvation can be lost through mortal sin, but such sins are by nature grave ones, and not the kind that a person living the Christian life is going to slip into committing on the spur of the moment, without deliberate thought and consent. Neither does the Catholic Church teach that one cannot have an assurance of salvation. This is true both of present and future salvation.

    One can be confident of one’s present salvation. This is one of the chief reasons why God gave us the sacraments—to provide visible assurances that he is invisibly providing us with his grace. And one can be confident that one has not thrown away that grace by simply examining one’s life and seeing whether one has committed mortal sin. Indeed, the tests that John sets forth in his first epistle to help us know whether we are abiding in grace are, in essence, tests of whether we are dwelling in grave sin. For example, "By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother" (1 John 3:10), "If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20), "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).

    Likewise, by looking at the course of one’s life in grace and the resolution of one’s heart to keep following God, one can also have an assurance of future salvation. It is this Paul speaks of when he writes to the Philippians and says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). This is not a promise for all Christians, or even necessarily all in the church at Philippi, but it is a confidence that the Philippian Christians in general would make it. The basis of this is their spiritual performance to date, and Paul feels a need to explain to them that there is a basis for his confidence in them. Thus he says, immediately, "It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel" (1:7). The fact that the Philippians performed spiritually by assisting Paul in his imprisonment and ministry showed that their hearts were with God and that it could be expected that they, at least in general, would persevere and remain with God.

    There are many saintly men and women who have long lived the Christian life and whose characters are marked with profound spiritual joy and peace. Such individuals can look forward with confidence to their reception in heaven.

    Such an individual was Paul, writing at the end of his life, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day" (2 Tim. 4:7-8). But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). Of course, for a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God’s grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly sure either of his own present state or of his future course.

    The same is true of us. We can, if our lives display a pattern of perseverance and spiritual fruit, have not only a confidence in our present state of grace but also of our future perseverance with God. Yet we cannot have an infallible certitude of our own salvation, as many Protestants will admit. There is the possibility of self-deception (cf. Matt. 7:22-23). As Jeremiah expressed it, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture’s positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.

    For example, Philippians 2:12 says, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." This is not the language of self-confident assurance. Our salvation is something that remains to be worked out.

    
    What To Say

    
    "Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."
    NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
    presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
    Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

    IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
    permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
    +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

    
    

    
    The Hell There Is

    
    

    The doctrine of eternal hell is so frightening that almost every heretical group ends up denying its reality. The Unitarian-Universalists, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christadelphians, Christian Science, Religious Science, New Agers, and the Mormons have all rejected the doctrine of hell or modified it so radically that it is no longer a serious threat.

    But the eternal nature of hell is stressed in the New Testament. For example, in Mark 9:47–48 Jesus warns us, "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." Hell is not just a theoretical possibility. Jesus says that real people go there: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few (Matt. 7:13–14).

    The Catholic Church is firm in teaching the reality of hell. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs (CCC 1035).

    In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote, "The words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt. 25:46). [But] who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard (185–6). In other words, that some will go to hell is decided, but the issue of who in particular is not.

    The early Church Fathers were also absolutely firm on the reality of an eternal hell, as the following quotes show.
    Ignatius of Antioch

    Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him. (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2 [A.D. 110])
    ________________________________________

    Second Clement

    If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment. (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150])
    ________________________________________

    Justin Martyr

    No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments. (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151])
    ________________________________________

    Justin Martyr

    [Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons. (ibid., 52)
    ________________________________________

    The Martyrdom of Polycarp

    Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire. (Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3 [A.D. 155])
    ________________________________________

    Mathetes

    When you know what is the true life, that of heaven; when you despise the merely apparent death, which is temporal; when you fear the death which is real, and which is reserved for those who will be condemned to the everlasting fire, the fire which will punish even to the end those who are delivered to it, then you will condemn the deceit and error of the world. (Letter to Diognetus 10:7 [A.D. 160])
    ________________________________________

    Athenagoras

    We [Christians] are persuaded that when we are removed from this present life we shall live another life, better than the present one. . . . Then we shall abide near God and with God, changeless and free from suffering in the soul . . . or if we fall with the rest [of mankind], a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere incidental work, that we should perish and be annihilated. (Plea for the Christians 31 [A.D. 177])
    ________________________________________

    Theophilus of Antioch

    Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire. (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181])
    ________________________________________

    Irenaeus

    The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire," they will be damned forever. (Against Heresies 4:28:2)
    ________________________________________

    Hippolytus

    Standing before [Christ’s] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: "Just is your judgment!" And the righteousness of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them. (Against the Greeks 3 [A.D. 212])
    ________________________________________

    Minucius Felix

    I am not ignorant of the fact that many, in the consciousness of what they deserve, would rather hope than actually believe that there is nothing for them after death. They would prefer to be annihilated rather than be restored for punishment. . . . Nor is there either measure nor end to these torments. That clever fire burns the limbs and restores them, wears them away and yet sustains them, just as fiery thunderbolts strike bodies but do not consume them. (Octavius 34:12–5:3 [A.D. 226])
    ________________________________________

    Cyprian of Carthage

    An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life. (To Demetrian 24 [A.D. 252])
    ________________________________________

    Lactantius

    The sacred writings inform us in what manner the wicked are to undergo punishment. For because they have committed sins in their bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, that they may make atonement in their bodies; and yet it will not be that flesh with which God clothed man, like this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding forever, that it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire. . . . The same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power, will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself with eternal nourishment. (Divine Institutes 7:21 [A.D. 307])
    ________________________________________

    Cyril of Jerusalem

    We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: For if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed. And righteously will God assign this portion to either company; for we do nothing without the body. We blaspheme with the mouth, and with the mouth we pray. With the body we commit fornication, and with the body we keep chastity. With the hand we rob, and by the hand we bestow alms; and the rest in like manner. Since then the body has been our minister in all things, it shall also share with us in the future the fruits of the past. (Catechetical Lectures 18:19 [A.D. 350])

    Purgatory

    
    The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven," which is experienced by those "who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified" (CCC 1030). It notes that "this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1031).

    The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven.

    
    Two Judgments

    
    When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).

    Augustine said, in The City of God, that "temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59).

    
    Money, Money, Money

    
    One argument anti-Catholics often use to attack purgatory is the idea that the Catholic Church makes money from promulgating the doctrine. Without purgatory, the claim asserts, the Church would go broke. Any number of anti-Catholic books claim the Church owes the majority of its wealth to this doctrine. But the numbers just don’t add up.

    When a Catholic requests a memorial Mass for the dead—that is, a Mass said for the benefit of someone in purgatory—it is customary to give the parish priest a stipend, on the principles that the laborer is worth his hire (Luke 10:7) and that those who preside at the altar share the altar’s offerings (1 Cor. 9:13–14). In the United States, a stipend is commonly around five dollars; but the indigent do not have to pay anything. A few people, of course, freely offer more. This money goes to the parish priest, and priests are only allowed to receive one such stipend per day. No one gets rich on five dollars a day, and certainly not the Church, which does not receive the money anyway.

    But look at what happens on a Sunday. There are often hundreds of people at Mass. In a crowded parish, there may be thousands. Many families and individuals deposit five dollars or more into the collection basket; others deposit less. A few give much more. A parish might have four or five or six Masses on a Sunday. The total from the Sunday collections far surpasses the paltry amount received from the memorial Masses.

    
    A Catholic "Invention"?

    
    Fundamentalists may be fond of saying the Catholic Church "invented" the doctrine of purgatory to make money, but they have difficulty saying just when. Most professional anti-Catholics—the ones who make their living attacking "Romanism"—seem to place the blame on Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from A.D. 590–604.

    But that hardly accounts for the request of Monica, mother of Augustine, who asked her son, in the fourth century, to remember her soul in his Masses. This would make no sense if she thought her soul would not benefit from prayers, as would be the case if she were in hell or in the full glory of heaven.

    Nor does ascribing the doctrine to Gregory explain the graffiti in the catacombs, where Christians during the persecutions of the first three centuries recorded prayers for the dead. Indeed, some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, like the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (both written during the second century), refer to the Christian practice of praying for the dead. Such prayers would have been offered only if Christians believed in purgatory, even if they did not use that name for it. (See Catholic Answers’ Fathers Know Best tract The Existence of Purgatory for quotations from these and other early Christian sources.)

    
    Why No Protests?

    
    Whenever a date is set for the "invention" of purgatory, you can point to historical evidence to show the doctrine was in existence before that date. Besides, if at some point the doctrine was pulled out of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it?

    A study of the history of doctrines indicates that Christians in the first centuries were up in arms (sometimes quite literally) if anyone suggested the least change in beliefs. They were extremely conservative people who tested a doctrine’s truth by asking, Was this believed by our ancestors? Was it handed on from the apostles? Surely belief in purgatory would be considered a great change, if it had not been believed from the first—so where are the records of protests?

    They don’t exist. There is no hint at all, in the oldest writings available to us (or in later ones, for that matter), that "true believers" in the immediate post-apostolic years spoke of purgatory as a novel doctrine. They must have understood that the oral teaching of the apostles, what Catholics call tradition, and the Bible not only failed to contradict the doctrine, but, in fact, confirmed it.

    It is no wonder, then, that those who deny the existence of purgatory tend to touch upon only briefly the history of the belief. They prefer to claim that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.

    Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. This may or may not be the case. However, even if the limbo of the Fathers is not purgatory, its existence shows that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture. Look at it this way. If the limbo of the Fathers was purgatory, then this one verse directly teaches the existence of purgatory. If the limbo of the Fathers was a different temporary state, then the Bible at least says such a state can exist. It proves there can be more than just heaven and hell.

    
    "Purgatory Not in Scripture"

    
    Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, "The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory.

    Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

    Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily. This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that, at the time of the Reformation, Protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine.

    Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. Not only can we show it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians.

    
    Why Go To Purgatory?

    
    Why would anyone go to purgatory? To be cleansed, for "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Anyone who has not been completely freed of sin and its effects is, to some extent, "unclean." Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, which is to say, he has been forgiven and his soul is spiritually alive. But that’s not sufficient for gaining entrance into heaven. He needs to be cleansed completely.

    Fundamentalists claim, as an article in Jimmy Swaggart’s magazine, The Evangelist, put it, that "Scripture clearly reveals that all the demands of divine justice on the sinner have been completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It also reveals that Christ has totally redeemed, or purchased back, that which was lost. The advocates of a purgatory (and the necessity of prayer for the dead) say, in effect, that the redemption of Christ was incomplete. . . . It has all been done for us by Jesus Christ, there is nothing to be added or done by man."

    It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.

    
    No Contradiction

    
    The Fundamentalist resistance to the biblical doctrine of purgatory presumes there is a contradiction between Christ’s redeeming us on the cross and the process by which we are sanctified. There isn’t. And a Fundamentalist cannot say that suffering in the final stage of sanctification conflicts with the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement without saying that suffering in the early stages of sanctification also presents a similar conflict. The Fundamentalist has it backward: Our suffering in sanctification does not take away from the cross. Rather, the cross produces our sanctification, which results in our suffering, because "[f]or the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb. 12:11).

    
    Nothing Unclean

    
    Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean, but actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered," if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean.

    Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if "covered," remains a dirty soul and isn’t fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Indeed, the necessity of the purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us "to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit." Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive "for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."
    NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
    presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
    Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

    IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
    permission to publish this work is hereby granted.

81. Mike says on Feb 3, 2009 @ 03:39 PM:

    David, I hope you will keep going and be patient with us. But please keep in mind that it would be helpful if you could be more succinct. I am really trying to figure out what is involved in Salvation according to Rome, and to be honest with you, your answers are so long that I cannot summarize them in my head. Is there a short simple answer for people like me? Perhaps it would be more helpful if you tell us what you think rather than the imprimatur stuff. It won’t be held against you on the blog if you get it wrong, you can always correct any wrong ideas you may share.

    Let me try and tell you what I have so far. The Pope is not actually saying that we “can be justified by faith in Christ, without works, as long as it does not exclude charity.” He is actually saying that we are justified by our sanctification, which includes a lifetime of suffering on this earth, and then, a much longer period of even worse suffering in Purgatory. When God determines that we have suffered enough so that we have paid the penalty for all our own sins, then he will apply the suffering of Christ, who has already paid the penalty for all our sins with his own suffering. In summary, Christ suffers to pay the penalty for our sins, we suffer again to pay the same penalty for our own sins, and if we suffer enough so that we are perfectly sanctified, then we will finally be justified! Is this correct or am I missing something?

82. Rayburne says on Feb 3, 2009 @ 06:54 PM:

    In all honesty, David, there are many points of confusion and misunderstanding in your long comment, not only between the Bible and Catholic teaching, but also as a result of what you have obviously read or heard from preachers or authors who are not balanced biblically in what they preach and teach. I am not interested in what some “evangelical” preacher or writer believes or does not believe; it is not even relevant to our discussion.I seldom listen to preachers on TV. There are some who are biblically sound or balanced, and many who are not. I am interested only in what the Bible teaches.

    There are many ideas out there concerning the biblical doctrines of regeneration, salvation, justification, sanctification, repentance, faith, assurance, eternal security, heaven, hell, etc., many of which have no foundation in scripture (I.e. the idea that once saved, it does not matter how you live your life). There are also, as has been clearly pointed out to you already, counterfeits associated with many of these biblical doctrines (I.e. saving or justifying faith versus temporal or intellectual faith, true repentance versus false repentance, true assurance versus false assurance, true security versus false security, possession of faith versus profession of faith, etc.) Important as the writings of the Church Fathers or the Reformers are, they must be carefully and thoroughly examined in the light or crucible of God’s Word. Purgatory is one of them, which I have already discussed in the light of scripture.

    I do not desire to teach a systematic study of biblical doctrines on this blog. Even if I did, I doubt if it would make any difference because you would just interpret these doctrines through Catholic lens or dogma, which explains why, as clearly revealed in your comments, in many cases , you don’t accept the straightforward ( plain) meaning of scripture in its historical, grammatical context. Therefore, I feel that what would benefit you (and others also) most (I have remembered you in prayer) would be to get back on track in our discussion of justification by (through) faith, specifically with regard to the Pope’s statement because, David, where the rubber hit’s the road, is the answer to this profound question: How can one be justified (declared righteous) before a holy God? I hope you will, therefore, be able to shed some light on the meaning of Pope Benedict’s statement for me (and Mike) from a biblical standpoint or position. God bless.

83. Anonymous says on Feb 4, 2009 @ 07:39 AM:

    Just one more thing, David. You use the word "fundamentalist" a lot (i.e. "Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist"). It used to be the case that "fundamentalist" was a very respectable and complimentary term--it was used to designate someone who stood firmly for the fundamental (historic) doctrines of the Christian faith. Today, it is mainly used in a derogatory sense to designate someone whose beliefs and practices are considered extreme, even militant. I'm sure we have all heard of islamic fundamentalists since the attack on the Twin Towers in the USA. In a society that is for the most part biblically illiterate, it generally creates a bad impression of Christianity (that, of course, doesn't mean that there are not people who hold extreme views within Christianity--there are). But, there are many kinds of "fundamentalists" and "fundamentalism," as I'm sure you are aware. We are very familar with militant fundamentalism, as I've said, however, we seldom hear about "secular fundamentalists," who have their own religion (secular humanism) and agenda. Many, sad to say,run our government and schools and teach our children. Take care.

84. David Castlen says on Feb 4, 2009 @ 08:29 AM:

    Rayburne, Mike and Ann.

    Here it is as simple as I can put it:

    There is (by far) more verses in the NT that says we must DO good deeds to get to heaven than there are verses that says we must have faith.

    There is no place in the bible that says we are saved by faith ALONE.

    To have faith and do charitable works we must have grace. We can not on our own. We must be changed. The sacraments change us. It is by grace we are able to do charitable works and have faith. So in essence, we are saved by grace.

    Now, that should be short enough, clear enough and I suppose disturbing enough. But let me ask you what is morre distrubing not getting to heaven or not having a stadium for the Marlins?

85. anonymous says on Feb 4, 2009 @ 12:48 PM:

    The Pope said the same thing the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years quote "So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14)." This has always been the Catholic teaching.

    Dr. Craig if you think Pope Benedict said anything different than what was said in the council of Trent than you don't understand anything the Pope said in that general audience.

86. Rayburne says on Feb 4, 2009 @ 12:56 PM:

    I would have to disagree with all of the above, David. The Bible carefully and clearly distinguishes what is required regarding salvation (Acts 16:31; Eph.. 2:8-10; Acts 20:21; Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; etc.) from what constitutes the nature of saving or justifying faith (James 2:not an empty or dead faith, but one that always produces [manifests itself, or is accompanied by] good works). I have already made this perfectly clear to you in much detail in my previous comments, particularly with regard to James 2 and Romans 4. As Paul clearly and poignantly states in Romans 11 with regard to those [elect] remnant of Israel (Rom. 11:1, 5) saved by grace: "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work" (verse 6).

    Once again, David, you are borrowing from the latter category of scriptural teaching in James (the nature of saving or justifying faith--characterized by good works) ) in order to mix the two (grace and works, faith and works) when it comes to the former category (what is required for salvation) whereas the Bible carefully and clearly distinguishes both categories when it comes to the role of grace and works, grace and faith in salvation. Please think about this.

    Of course, I understand why you do this. So does Mike who has a former Catholic background. You must extend your biblical hermeneutic or interpretation beyond the straightforward (plain) meaning of scripture in its historical and grammatical context, of necessity, if you want to supposedly reconcile scripture with Catholic teaching to the effect that being a Catholic, Christened, confirmed, going to mass each week, and confession regularly, and not neglecting mass on holy days, and generally being a nice guy, will somehow ensure that you will be in a "state of grace" --which will guarantee your entrance into heaven, provided Christ decides that you are good enough to be saved (but this in no way is certain) and you have done enough time (could be eons) in Purgatory.
    
    David, I believe your problem is that you really do not accept the authority of Scripture at all; you accept the authority of Rome, and that always takes precedence over God's word. I also believe that you do not really believe God saves sinners, but good people, especially if they are Catholics.

    But what I think about your faith is not important to this discussion. What is important is what God thinks, as clearly revealed in His inspired, infallible, authoritative Word. Which is why I would appreciate it if you would stop dodging the question about the meaning of the Pope’s statement on justification. You tell us in your own words from your heart what you believe the Pope means when it comes to the question of how one may be justified in the sight of a holy God. For example, is it an instantaneous justification--a declarative act by God with respect to the repentant and believing sinner that his sins are pardoned and forgiven in full on the basis of Christ’s substitution and propitiatory Sacrifice on Calvary’s cross and the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness to that repentant and believing sinner’s account, OR, is there something else that we who have received Jesus Christ in repentance and faith as Lord and Saviour must do according to Rome to be justified? I sincerely await your reply. God bless.

87. David Castlen says on Feb 5, 2009 @ 06:12 AM:

    This am it is colder here in Palm Beach county Fl than the five typically coldest places in the U.S. That kind lady who told me to burn in hell will just have to call Al Gore and talk to him about this "Global Warming" delusion.

    Never the less....here we go again....what did Socrates say, "Call no one wise that is only God's nature, call some lovers of wisdom: philosophers.

    I don’t know where I got this, but it is (what I think) a confirmation of my explanations that parallels what I have been saying. I have inserted a lot of my own clarifications. By the way, as Anonymous says in his above statement, the Catholic Church has never changed its teaching. All revelation stopped with the death of St. John.
    We must, in this discussion, clarify what the term “law” is. I have mentioned this quoting from Iranius’ Against Heresy. What do we mean by “law”?
    In his Letter to the Galatians, Paul further explains that even Jews who have believed in Christ Jesus have done so because it is through faith in Christ and not by works of the law that they can be justified. As St. Paul states, “by works of the law no one will be justified."

    Pope Benedict then addressed the interpretation of this passage by Martin Luther, who translated it as “justified by faith alone.”
    “Before returning to this point it is necessary to clarify which is the 'Law' from which we have been freed and what are the works that do not justify us,” Benedict XVI said.
    “In the community of Corinth,” the Holy Father explained, “there already existed an opinion, that crops up again throughout history, to the effect that it is the moral law, and that hence Christian freedom means freedom from ethics. ... Obviously this is an incorrect interpretation. Christian freedom is not debauchery, ... it is not freedom from doing good."
    Christian freedom is not, again, is not freedom from ethics. It is not freedom from the moral law. The moral law – natural law - can be summarized in the Ten Commandments.
    "For St. Paul, as for his contemporaries, the word Law meant the Torah in its entirety, ..again in its entirety. 613 laws which imposed ... a series of actions ranging from an ethical core to ritual observances ... and substantially defined the identity of the just man, ... such as circumcision, dietary laws, etc. ... All these precepts - expressive of a social, cultural and religious identity - were very important" in the Hellenistic age when polytheism was rife and Israel felt threatened in its identity and feared "the loss of faith in the One God and in His promises."
    At the moment of his encounter with the Risen Lord, Paul understood that "with Christ, the God of Israel, the one true God, became the God of all nations. The wall -so he says in the Letter to the Ephesians- between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary: it is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary, our common identity in the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just,” the Pope said.

    Pope Benedict then offered the interesting insight that “Being just simply means being with Christ, being in Christ, that is all. The other precepts are no longer necessary. Luther's expression 'sola fide' is true, if if if if if if if if faith is not against charity, against love. To believe is to see Christ, to trust in Christ, to become attached to Christ, to conform to Christ, to his life."

    "Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbor the Law is present and fulfilled. So in communion with Christ, in faith, which creates charity, the Law is realized. We become just by entering into communion with Christ, who is love. We will see the same thing in the Gospel of next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. Love is the only criteria of the Gospel of the judge," the Pope explained.

    In closing, the Pope invited the faithful to "ask the Lord to help us believe, to truly believe, so belief becomes life, unity with Christ, a transformation of our lives. And so, transformed by his love, by love of God and neighbor, we can be truly just in the eyes of God."
    “We can BE” BE: our existential self, not just appear or as the philosophers call it our “accidental” self. Be: our substance, our self. Being “truly just” does not mean I am covered in a mask of justice, but in fact I AM just. How can I do that? How can I be just? Only with the help of Jesus Christ can I be just. Only by grace. He has given us His sacraments as tools to be holy. Dear Lord thank you for the grace of the Mass.
    I have been told that Catholic apologetics is illogical. That is quit a proposition considering great minds have come to the Faith like Mortimer Adler, G.K. Chesterton, Peter Kreeft, and on and on. Give Fulton Sheen a read or Chesterton or better yet Kreeft; dear Lord, not Castlen. Kreeft’s Catechism is readable, informative, enlightening and logically presented. Or try Scott Hahn or give EWTN’s TV program “A Journey Home” a look see. But as Dale Carnegie once said, “A man convinced against his will is a man of the same opinion still.” Well, I think it was Carnegie; maybe it was Fred Stoopenstopper, down at the local watering hole.
    God bless.
    Dominus vobis cum

88. David Castlen says on Feb 5, 2009 @ 07:54 AM:

    From a New Catholic who was a Preacher:

    The Works that Influenced me to return to the Catholic Church.
    Seek for answers, and when you find what seems to be an answer, question that too. Louis L’amour, The Walking Drum.

    My return to the Catholic Church was not something that happened in an instant. The works mentioned here were read by me over a twenty year period. Here are a few golden nuggets I picked up on the way.

    1. The Writings of the Early Church.
    If one wishes to know about a period of history, what makes more sense? To ask someone who actually lived, worked, and experienced the events first-hand? Or to ask someone thousands of years and miles removed from the events who has his own prejudices? An honest historian will seek to hear the voices of those who lived the events. Here are a few:
    A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot.
    The Teachings of the Church Fathers, edited by John R. Willis.
    For those unwilling to sift through the volumes of writings by the Early Church Fathers, these two books give a comprehensive reference guide of how the Early Church thought in the first 300 years. The fundamentalist will avoid these books like a vampire does the sunrise.
    The History of the Church by Eusebius.
    This was a major shock to me while I was still in fundamentalism. Written in the 4th century, Eusebius gives an undeniably Catholic picture of the early church. It tears apart ‘Trail of Blood’ revisionist church history.
    The City of God and Confessions by St. Augustine.
    These works fascinated me with what is a clearly Catholic view of Christianity.

    2. The Writings of the Medieval Church
    The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis.
    The Soul’s Journey into God, The Tree of Life, and The Life of St. Francis by St. Bonaventure.
    The Little Flowers of St. Francis, unknown.
    These works blew me out of the water. How could these men, in the “DARK AGES”, write what was so obviously born of the Holy Spirit? A Kempis especially moved me and brought me to my knees.

    3. The Writings of the Reformation, two wonderful bad examples:
    Selected Works of Martin Luther.
    Luther comes off as a cold theologian who appeared to lack humility and spiritual guidance. He is an angry man given to exaggerations, distortions, contradictions, inconsistencies within his own writings. Emotion, not reason, dominated his writings. His chief supporters were the humanists, rebellious, immoral clergy and those with revolutionary tendencies. The Renaissance introduced and greatly fostered the conditions Luther played into at the time. In short, Luther was not reaching back into Church history to recover Biblical Christianity (as what had been told to me), he was instead a product of his time.
    Selected Works of John Calvin.
    Calvin fares a little better. But his cold and lifeless approach to predestination left a sour taste in my mouth. The more I read Calvin, the less of a Calvinist I became.

    4. Modern Works.
    The Ministry of Malcolm Smith.
    Malcolm Smith is a Charismatic Episcopal Priest from England. His sermons had a major influence on why I returned to the Catholic Church. Still available on audio are these:
    Blood Covenant.
    Preached while Malcolm was a young Pentecostal preacher in New York during the 1960s ‘renewal movement.’ This series punched a huge hole in my dispensationalist beliefs while still a fundamentalist. That led to his next series of sermons:
    The Seven Covenants of Scripture.
    Unfortunately no longer available.
    The Power of the Holy Spirit in Liturgy.
    This is perhaps, the most powerful dissertation on the Sacraments I ever heard. If one has never been a part of a sacramental church, I would recommend this series of sermons to help explain the way. Malcolm uses much scripture, and wonderful illustrations to introduce to a non-sacramental audience the beauty of the Sacraments. I also recommend:
    The Holy Spirit in the Sacraments.
    Covers much of the same ground, but goes much deeper.

    Books:
    Fundamentalism and Catholicism by Karl Keating.
    The final nail in the coffin (for me) of fundamentalism. Keating writes with intelligence coupled with extensive background information that is a must read for any convert.
    The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
    Recommended for anyone who wishes to know what the Catholic Church believes.
    Roots of the Reformation by Karl Adam.
    In this short work, Adam gives the best analysis of the Reformation I have ever read.
    Journeys Home by Marcus Grodi.
    The journeys of Protestant clergy back to the Catholic Church.

    There were many others, but these came immediately to mind.

89. John J. Nursing-Student says on Feb 5, 2009 @ 11:59 AM:

    David:

    I am a born-again Evangelical believer since 1996. I disagree with your assessment on Eusebius. It's been several years since I looked into the church fathers; I don't claim to be an expert. However, I did read Eusebius's "Ecclesiastical History" back in '01, and what really struck me was how non-Catholic the church was back then; of course, it was also markedly non-Protestant as well, which doesn't surprise me, but one definitely does not see anywhere near the sacraments, the appeal to Rome as the seat of the church (this is never even alluded to), Mary (mentioned hardly at all), and many other Catholic doctrines are not mentioned. I understand that Catholics believe that truth was gradually "uncovered," but, good grief, I look at the church of Eusebius and the RC church of today, they are not, in my honest assessment, anywhere near the same church

90. Rayburne says on Feb 5, 2009 @ 12:26 PM:

    Thanks for your comment, David. You said the Pope provided this valuable insight: "Being just simply means being with Christ, being in Christ, that is all. The other precepts are no longer necessary. Luther's expression 'sola fide' is true, if faith is not against charity, against love. To believe is to see Christ, to trust in Christ, to become attached to Christ, to conform to Christ, to his life."

    "We become just by entering into communion with Christ, who is love." My question is how, "How do we enter into communion with Christ? Through the Mass? I would draw this conclusion, if I have understood correctly, from the Pope's next statement: "Only with the help of Jesus Christ can I be just. Only by grace. He has given us His sacraments as tools to be holy. Dear Lord thank you for the grace of the Mass."

    Before we can have communion (fellowship) with Christ, we must be, of necessity,first be united to Christ through repentance and faith in His finished redemptive work (His death and resurrection). The Bible teaches that in our natural unregenerate, fallen state, we are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1),spiritually blind (Eph. 4:18; 2 Cor. 4:3) and spiritually hostile to God and the things of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10-14), so that we are the enemies of God (Rom. 8:7). As such, we must first be reconciled to God through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 5:9-10; 2 Cor. 5:20) before we can be "in Christ," in "union with Christ." And likewise, we must be "in Christ' (Col. 1:27); that is united with Him through faith is His shed blood on the Cross for our sins and resurrection before we can have communion (fellowship) with Him. In short, our spiritually dead, blind and hostile natures must first receive new (spiritual) life from God (John 1:13; 3:3,7;Titus 3:5)through the convicting, drawing and regenerating power of the Holy Spirit before we can be united to Christ through repentance and faith in His finished redemptive work (His death and resurrection) and indeed have sweet communion with Him. All of this according to scripture must first take place before we can have real communion (fellowship) with Christ. Yet, I am supposed to believe that all of this is possible through the Mass? I don't think so.

    Scripture clearly tells us that faith (the free gift of God's grace) comes through hearing the Word of God preached (Rom. 10:17)and that we are born again "not of corruptibel seed but incorruptible through the Word of God" (1 Pet. 1:23).

    Accordingly, if this is clearly what the Pope meant, that one is justified through the sacrament of the Mass, then I must state unequivocally and in the strongest possible way that I do not share this conviction.

    I also believe that what the Pope understands in the context of the above atatement by "with the help of Jesus Christ can I be just" (and "to be truly just" in following statement) is not what is commonly understood by the biblical teaching of justification--a legal declaration by God (the protestant understanding) that one who has repented and trusted solely in Jesus Christ to save him from sin and eternal perdition is justified (declared righteous) on the basis of the merits of Christ's finished redemptive work alone (His death and resurrection) and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ to that repentant and believing sinner.

    I do like what the Pope said, "ask the Lord to help us believe, to truly believe, so belief becomes life, unity with Christ, a transformation of our lives. And so, transformed by his love, by love of God and neighbor, we can be truly just in the eyes of God," provided "to truly believe, so belief becomes life, unity with Christ" means to trust solely and exclusively in the merits of Jesus Christ's finished redemptive work--His death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15; Romans 10:9-10)for our justification,and not any in any so-called meritorious works or "righteousness" of our own (see Isaiah 53:6;64:6 Jermiah 17:9; Rom. 3:10-23). I don't think, however, this was the Pope's meaning, judging by his previous statement to the effect that one is justified through the sacrament of the Mass, quote," Only with the help of Jesus Christ can I be just. Only by grace. He has given us His sacraments as tools to be holy. Dear Lord thank you for the grace of the Mass."

    I thank you for your time and effort and I pray, as Paul prayed for the believers at Ephesus, "that Christ may dwell in your heart(s) through faith...to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fulness of God. Now, to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen". God bless.

91. roger says on Feb 6, 2009 @ 09:11 AM:

    I would think most everyones questions could have been answered just by reading the full text of the Popes General Audience. I will provide them here as the audio posted above really only references the first week of a two week/part teaching. They are not that long. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html
    I would be happy to address any questions that may derive from it the best I can.

92. Rayburne says on Feb 6, 2009 @ 10:14 AM:

    Thank you,Roger, but I believe my questions have already been answered.

93. Mike says on Feb 6, 2009 @ 10:46 AM:

    Thank you for clarifying the Pope’s statements, David. Like Rayburne, I am happy to hear that “being just” means “being with Christ, being in Christ.” We can all agree on that. And we can also agree that faith is to “see…trust…attach…conform to Christ.” But then, unfortunately, it all gets confused as sanctification is brought into the definition. I suppose the Pope has to equivocate on the word justification in order to maintain the traditional teaching of the RC Church. Sanctification is the experience whereby God changes his justified children into the image of Christ. In contrast, the Pope is saying that it is sanctification that results in justification. The problem with this is that the child of God is not actually justified until sanctification is complete, and may never be. His justification is progressive and conditional upon the character of his sanctification, hence, works of holiness (especially works of holiness as prescribed by RC tradition) become the instrumental cause of justification, not trust in Christ. It seems Roman Catholics can be saved by grace, but only if they pay for it with their sanctifying efforts.

    I also appreciated the clarification about the law. It appears that Christ only saves us from the Jewish ceremonial law. I cannot imagine why he would need to do that for us Gentiles when our main problem is “the law written on our heart” (obviously the moral law) which condemns us so powerfully and completely. Who will save us from that?

    I know that at this point RC theology will come to our rescue, not with Christ, but with the mass. Yet once we accept that Christ’s sacrifice only took care of the Jewish ceremonial law, that option is not open to us. I suppose this is why Roman Catholic theology makes a distinction between mortal and venial sin (like the distinction between ceremonial and moral law). Catholics, like the rest of us, recognize that we all fail to keep the moral law and do sin, but instead of letting them admit it and seek Christ for a solution, the Church looks for mortal and venial loopholes, and ceremonial and moral distinctions, and then substitutes her own ceremonies as the solution.

    Incidentally, in Galatians Paul argues that “if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” and he then goes on to define what he means by the law (Galatians 5:18-23), and it is not the ceremonial law that is the problem; he makes it very clear - as he does in Romans - that it is moral evil and not ceremonies that is the problem.

    I also find it interesting that the people who convert to Roman Catholicism do so after reading everyone and everything other than the Bible. By their own admission, there conversion is not based upon the teaching of Christ and the apostles, but on their historical understanding of the claims of Rome. I think that is remarkable.

    And what about those good men mentioned who have converted to Catholicism? Is this meant to convince us that Roman Catholicism must be the way to go? This is simply not a compelling argument. If I put together a list of good people who have converted to Islam, will this convince us all to become Moslems?

    Having said that, I love Chesterton, and I give away copies of Peter Kreeft’s book on Christian Apologetics which is a masterpiece of non-sectarian reasoning. But, so what? Does the fact that I also love C. S. Lewis mean that I should join the Anglican Church?

    I also find it rather depressing that while pro-Catholic writers are extolled, Luther and Calvin are despised, not so much because of their ideas, but because they are “angry” and “lifeless.” So, now we must all accept Roman Catholicism because “good” Catholics are nicer than “bad” Protestants. This is just so feeble.

    Interestingly, “The Trail of Blood” actually uses a similar historical argument as the Roman Catholic Church to establish its authority. Because some of the teachings of early Christian history are comparable to Baptist teachings today, and these teachings can be traced back through Christian sects to the first century, then Baptists are the true Church. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

    I will point out again that “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” is not the same thing. One only has to read the history which we all value so highly to see that this is so. The statement by Anonymous that Roman Catholic teaching has never changed is disingenuous. There is a clear development that takes place in Catholic teaching that leads to the Western, Eastern and Reformed teachings of today. To deny this is to withhold a whole history of facts. And as John J. Nursing Student points out, the Church Fathers are claimed, but the Roman Catholic doctrines are hard to find within them. This is why the Reformers could argue their case from the Fathers. It simply is not as clear as so many have been led to believe. All true Christians are “Catholic” in the sense that we accept the teaching and creeds of the early church, but not all are “Roman Catholic.”

    I also would like to give a reminder that the Roman Catholic apologists’ claim that the Protestant view of justification by faith produces licentiousness is a straw man. No Protestant would say that we are free to break the law (the “angry” Luther and the “lifeless” Calvin would deny this with great “anger” and very “lively” indignation, as did the apostle Paul when he was accused of the same thing), so why keep on bringing it up? The Bible is clear; we are freed from the penalty of the moral law (death) by the death of Christ, for the very purpose of being created anew, so that we can love, and fulfill the law. However, we need to understand that no matter how loving we imagine ourselves to be, our actions will never produce our justification. Our only hope is that we can be justified by faith in Christ, and not by our own sanctifying efforts. Once place our sanctification as a condition of our justification and we are all lost; but, once trust Christ for our justification, and sanctification becomes, not a condition, but a blessed result and certainty.

    Thanks Roger for the head up. This blog started because of William Lane Craig’s comments on the Pope’s statement. All we wanted to know was if we could take the Pope’s statements at face value; we were not thinking of converting to Roman Catholicism, nor did we want to become experts in RC theology. Anyway, we have our answer. To understand what the Pope means by justification we have to wade through a ton of historical re-definitions and tradition…but only if they are approved by Rome.

    Sorry to be so long, but there is a lot of stuff to reply too.

94. Amanda says on Feb 6, 2009 @ 09:42 PM:

    Hi, newbie lurker here-- just wanted to poke my nose in and make a couple comments to Mike's post above.

    Please understand that when Catholics talk about sanctification and obedience we still aren't claiming that we can save ourselves and work our way to Heaven. Nothing, nothing, nothing that we can do on our own will save us. We are saved only by the grace of God. The question is how is this grace transmitted? The Catholic answer is by faith and obedience, which is what the Scriptures clearly teach.

    Think about Noah for a minute. Did God save Noah from the flood? Yes. Did Noah have to do anything in order to receive this saving grace? Yes, he had to build the ark as God commanded. Does that mean the glory goes to Noah for saving himself? No. God saved Noah, but Noah had to believe God and obey his commands. The building of the ark was, in fact, an act of faith as well as obedience. This is where the "works" in faith and works comes in. Some people don't understand what is meant by "works" and thus their entire understanding of the concept is scewed.

    Even the most simple act of faith in God requires the participation of our wills. Which is a positive action on our parts. Or to put it another way, salvation is a gift from God given through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. It's a gift freely given, and yet...not everyone is saved. Those who are saved are those who accept the gift.

    Seems like the different ways we define exactly *how* the gift of grace is received is one of the main areas where Catholics and protestants get tripped up.

    Hope that helps. :)

95. roger says on Feb 7, 2009 @ 07:18 AM:

    Mike says - "I suppose the Pope has to equivocate on the word justification in order to maintain the traditional teaching of the RC Church. Sanctification is the experience whereby God changes his justified children into the image of Christ. In contrast, the Pope is saying that it is sanctification that results in justification."

    I would humbly have to say this assessment of yours is false making the rest of your post unnecessary.

    The Catholic understanding of the relationship of Justification and Salvation is
    1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," 44 justification entails the sanctification of his whole being:

    Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.... But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. 45 - The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

96. Mike says on Feb 7, 2009 @ 12:44 PM:

    Thanks for the replies. The “rest of the post” was necessary to answer the off topic stuff. The issue here is about the nature of justification, but we keep trying to prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church. Forgive me for responding to that idea.

    When we began this blog we hoped that the Pope was revising the RC understanding of Justification, but as the debate has continued our excitement has been somewhat dampened.

    I agree with Amanda that faith will result in works – no problem there. This is not the issue. The issue is whether the works our faith produces are credited to our account (and if so, how many and what kind of works are needed), or is it our faith that is credited to our account? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Do we need to add works to tip the scale, or is it our faith, not our works, that is considered? We agree with James that the justifying faith we are talking about will result in works, but Paul’s point is that Abraham was justified before he did any works! We all agree that the works follow the faith and showed his faith genuine.

    Rome tells us that we are not “credited” fully righteous as the Bible says (Paul’s argument fails completely if this is true), but, rather, when we believe in Christ our justification only begins (it is not yet fully credited), we then must do sanctifying works and practice vicarious suffering, and these are considered meritorious (because done in Christ), and will be added to our account, and hopefully, in the end (perhaps after eons in Purgatory), they will all add up to tip the scale resulting in our finally being credited righteous by God (all by the grace earned by faith and obedience).

    It is this understanding that made me think that the Pope is equivocating on the word “justification.” Perhaps it is more accurate to say the equivocation is on the word “credited” (logizomai). RC doctrine is not allowing it to describe the way we are righteous, turning away from the idea that we are credited or declared righteous, and inserting the idea that we are “made” righteous. (Please, when I point this out, I am not trying to be disrespectful to the Pope, I am just making an honest point – I hope that I can disagree with the Pope and not offend anyone – I don’t think he would take offence). If you can correct this and tell me that the Pope is not disagreeing with this definition of the word “credit” I will be happy to hear it, because I think this is where the real problem is to be found. It was this, after all, that stirred up Luther.

    I would also like an answer, to the question that Rayburne asked earlier. "How do we enter into communion with Christ?” As the Pope says, there can be no justification without communion with Christ; we all agree. So, how is that communion attained?

    Here is my understanding of how we enter into communion with Christ: “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into his grace in which we now stand.” Faith is trust in our Saviour (that results in obedience). Can we take this statement in this way, really believing that we have been justified by faith in Christ, or do we have to work and suffer to make our justification a reality in some future existence? If so, what are the works and the suffering that are required to make our final justification happen?

97. roger says on Feb 7, 2009 @ 02:21 PM:

    Mike, may you receive this rebuke in the same humility in which it is offered.

    The rest was unnecessary because the statement it is based on is false.

    The Pope did not say "In contrast, the Pope is saying that it is sanctification that results in justification." You did.

    The Catholic Church does not teach "The problem with this is that the child of God is not actually justified until sanctification is complete, and may never be. His justification is progressive and conditional upon the character of his sanctification, hence, works of holiness (especially works of holiness as prescribed by RC tradition) become the instrumental cause of justification, not trust in Christ. It seems Roman Catholics can be saved by grace, but only if they pay for it with their sanctifying efforts." It is only you who teach that the Catholic Church does. You do not speak for Catholics.

    After reading through these post I find this is not an isolated incident. What I have read in all humility is bearing false witness against ones neighbor. I am sure you do so out of ignorance of Catholic teaching and not maliciousness but if you are telling these types of things to others the resulting damage is still the same.

    I learned from a very wise man that when you teach the beliefs of another you should do so so genuinely that they will say yes that is what I believe.

    When you speak to others what Catholics believe about justification and sanctification it should sound like this.

    1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46

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

    1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.47

    1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48

    Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.49

98. mike says on Feb 7, 2009 @ 05:17 PM:

    Dear Roger, no need to feel bad about rebuking me. This is a blog. We are not church officials determining doctrine, but only laymen trying to hammer out what justification is according to RC doctrine. I am no expert and am speaking only from my popular understanding of what RC doctrine teaches as believed by my friends and relatives.

    I notice you start with the article that deals with where justification comes from (the grace of God), do you have one that defines justification. That might help. In the meantime, I will give your comments some thought and try and get back to you next week. We all have a busy weekend giving thanks to our mighty Saviour.

99. David Castlen says on Feb 7, 2009 @ 05:45 PM:

    I can not come near to providing the support that Roger and Amanda just gave. I hope the humility that is apparent here continues: God resist the proud. And so I say, "Adios."

    “Call no one wise,” said Socrates, “Only God is wise; call some lovers of wisdom: Philosopher. Thank you all for your contributions. I will pray for you all, pray for me and especially the Marlins.

100. Rayburne says on Feb 7, 2009 @ 10:51 PM:

     David, there were so many things I could have addressed that had more to do with your defence of Catholic teaching rather than the topic under discussion (Pope's Benedict's statement on justification). Some of your statements bordered on the ridiculous. for example "protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine"(purgatory). That is sheer nonsense,David and you know it. The reason protestants do not include the apocryphal books in their Bible is because they were not recognized as inspired or authoritative by the Jews of Jesus' day. The primary criteria in recognizing the divine authority of the Bible was authorship by a tested and verified prophet. With respect to the prophets, after about 400 B.C. no more prophets appeared in Israel. Three times the writer of 1 Maccabees mentions that there were no prophets in Israel (4:46; 9:27; cf. 14:41). And Josephus said that about the time of Artaxerxes of Persia "the exact succession of the prophets" had ceased. The Old Testament being completed, after 4 centuries of prophetic silence John the Baptist is the last of the prophets of the old covenant and the precursor of Jesus.

     Jesus recognized the entire Jewish canon as from God and referred to each of its three divisions: the Law, the Prophets (Luke 24:24; and the Writings, the Psalms being the largest book of the Writings. Sometimes He referred to the entire canon as "the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 5:17), or to the entire Old Testament as "the law" (as when quoting a Psalm, John 10:34).

     Indeed, the main support for the doctrine of purgatory, which is found in 2 Maccabees 12:42-45, a book that is not recognized as canonical by protestants, proves a lot more than Catholics can consistently admit; namely, the possible deliverance of soldiers from purgatory who had died in the mortal sin of sdultery (the punishment for which is hell, not purgatory).

     The Jewish canon at that time of Christ was the same as our protestant canon; it did not include the apocryphal additions, including 1 and 2 Maccabees. Augustine approved the apocryphal books for edifying reading, but not for establishing authorative doctrine. Jerome, in Augustine's time, about A.D. 400, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome (Pope), 590-604, and Cardinal Cajetan (1517-1534)at the time of the Reformation, opposed the inclusion of these books in the canon, "the rule for confirming those things which are of faith." The authors of the apocryphal additions to the Old Testament were not recognized prophets inspired of God. Nevertheless, in 1546 the Roman Catholic Council of Trent declared that anyone who did not receive as canonical these books entire, with all their parts, was anathema (accursed).

     Christ's reference to the unpardonable sin ("blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", Matthew 12:32) has nothing to do with purgatory. If you can infer anything from it (in its biblical context) it is clearly hell, not purgatory. Paul's statement to the effect that when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried: "If anyone's work which he has built on endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire", as every student of the Bible knows (and the context makes perfectly clear) is what is commonly referred to as the Bema (or Judgment) Seat of Christ, which is solely and clearly addressed to the righteous or Christian believers, not the unsaved. This is clear from the context of chapter 3. Paul calls them "brethren" in 1 Corinthians 3:1; also "God's fellow workers" and "you are God's building"(the church) in verse 9. Clearly, as Paul makes perfectly clear in the whole context of chapter 3, this judgment has nothing to do with hell (or purgatory). Nor is it a judgment for condemnation of the urighteous or unsaved, but rather a judgment for the determination of rewards for Christian service, as verses 14 and 15 make perfectly clear: "If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward" (or lack of same). If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire".

     Clearly, in the case of the Christian who suffers loss, it is that believer's works, not the believer himself, that will be tried "so as through fire," as verse 13 makes perfectly clear: "Each one's work will become clear...because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is." Read the whole chapter (including especially verses 1,8, 9,10-15,16,17) and tell me that Paul here is not speaking historically and contextually to believers only at Corinth and eschatologically or prophetically to the [future] time in which the Christian's service or work for Christ will be judged, not for the purpose of condemnation (Romans 8:1), but rather for the determination of rewards (or loss of same) based on their works or service--whether it was done for self (wrong motive) or for the glory of God.

     Like several other passages of scripture that are supposed to teach purgatory (i.e. Isa. 4:4; Zech. 9:11; Mal. 3:2,3; Matt. 12:32; 1 Cor. 3:13-15; 15:29), it is evident that one must force and strain biblical exegesis beyond the limit of sound biblical and historical (contextual and grammatical) interpretation to make them teach purgatory. There is absolutely no support for this doctrine in scripture.The establishment in scripture of an intermediate state (i.e. the intermediate, disembodied state of deceased martyrs in heaven in Revelation 20:4-5, who have died for their Christian witness) does not explain (or account for ) the doctrine of purgatory. Baptismal regeneration is another doctrine that has no foundation in scripture. And please, John 3:3,5,7; Titus 3:5, Ephesians 5:26; etc. do not teach that the new birth (regeneration) takes place through water baptism. Indeed, they have nothing to do with water baptism, as I can clearly show if I had time (wjich I don't). That is the reason, David, I did not answer so many issues and non-biblical arguments (mainly with their usual Catholic spinoff). You just keep coming back with more of Catholic teachings (I"m sure you can think for yourself) to cloud the straightforward (plain) meaning of scripture. It's like being on a merry-go-round.

     There are so many other things I do not have time to address now in your long comments. After much painstaking labour and effort, I finally got some sort of an answer on what the Pope clearly meant in his speech or address by justification, although I specifically asked what you understood the Pope's words on justification to mean. Please, no more long diatribe on teaching from Rome. God bless.

101. David Castlen says on Feb 8, 2009 @ 10:59 AM:

     OK

102. roger says on Feb 9, 2009 @ 02:49 PM:

     Mike thank you for your gracious reply and as per your request I will copy and paste from the compendium a short definition and provide a link to the paragraphs it references from the Catechism. The Catechism paragraphs are not long only to long for pasting here.

     From the Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church
     422. What is justification?

     1987-1995 (paragraphs in the Catechism that the following is derived)
     2017-2020

     Justification is the most excellent work of God's love. It is the merciful and freely-given act of God which takes away our sins and makes us just and holy in our whole being. It is brought about by means of the grace of the Holy Spirit which has been merited for us by the passion of Christ and is given to us in Baptism. Justification is the beginning of the free response of man, that is, faith in Christ and of cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

     link to paragraphs in Catechism
     http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6Y.HTM
     http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P72.HTM

103. Mike says on Feb 9, 2009 @ 04:48 PM:

     Thanks, Roger, this really helps. Please don’t be hurt by the cut and thrust of the debate. It all becomes very boring if there is no clash of steel. If we have no enthusiasm for the fight, not only will we put the blog to sleep, but we will never sharpen each others thinking. I will try my best to curb my excitement, check my careless rhetoric, and pull my punches.

     The definition you supply does reveal the problem which Christians have been fencing over for the last four hundred years. It is my understanding that the phrase “makes us just and holy in our whole being” is at the root of the conflict. To me, as an evangelical Christian, the idea of being “made” just and holy belongs to the grace of sanctification. Justification, as Rayburne points out, is a legal declaration of righteousness, not an infusion of righteousness.

     It seems to me, that the Catholic definition confuses justification and sanctification conflating the separate truths, as Ankerberg and Weldon point out,

     “In Protestantism, spiritual transformation within a person by the Holy Spirit comes as a result of justification. Sanctification or spiritual growth never is the means by which a man attains justification. In Catholicism, however, sanctification, or the inner transformation of the person to live a righteous life is that process by which a man eventually gains justification…Catholicism says that this process of sanctification has only led to the beginning, or initial state of justification, not to the final state of justification.”

     That the Protestant view is correct can be shown on linguistic grounds. J. I Packer states, “There is no lexical grounds for the view of the medieval Roman theologians that ‘justify’ means or connotes as part of its meaning ‘making righteous’ by subjective spiritual renewal. The tridentine definition of justification as not only remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man is erroneous.”

     This declarative definition can also be shown from the context of Paul’s arguments when using the word (I wont weary us with all the quotes, please study them).

     The Council of Trent produces the really troubling part (please confirm), the Council appears to put a curse on the lexicon definition, and on all Protestants. This is why I am so happy to hear the Pope talking about justification. The truth in the lexicon can speak for itself, and he – if anyone – can update this mistaken definition (he doesn’t have to lift the curse - we evangelicals deserve it!).

     Please correct.

     Also, David, I hope you will stay with us. I have so enjoyed your honest, spirited comments, and your unfailing sense of humor. Though you do manage to drag us all off topic, those side discussions have resulted in some of the most compelling dialogue in this blog. If you are determined to drop out, I wish you well, and I do hope that the Marlins will do better for you in the future (I am English so I don’t have a clue who the Marlins are - but I suspect that they aren’t fish. Go Liverpool!)

104. David Castlen says on Feb 10, 2009 @ 08:04 AM:

     Mike,

     Thank you for your comments. I will continue to read this blog. Roger, based on what I am reading, does a superb job of reiterating what I have stated in concise clear articulate language that is only outdone but by Chesterton. I do hope this leads us closer to Christ, "God has made us for His pleasure and until we rest in Him we will be restless (confused, emotionaly upset)."

     By the way, I would like to suggest a purchase: The ten volume set of the history of the Fathers of the Church.

     Dominus vobiscum

105. Rayburne says on Feb 10, 2009 @ 01:08 PM:

     Mike is not wrong in pointing out there is a big (enormous is more accurate) point of contention and confusion between Catholics and Protestants over what we Protestants call justification and sanctification (though he may have misunderstood what Catholic dogma teaches as to the order in which they occur). I can assure you that there was no intention to mislead anyone. I could say the same thing with respect to many criticisms raised in previous comments about what we Protestants believe and teach, if I wanted, but I believe the other respondents (especially David) communicated honestly in good faith.

     I agree wholeheartedly with the points Mike raised in his comment. Accordingly, we need to identify clearly these differences one point at a time in Protestant teaching and Roman Catholic theology according to Trent, and then discuss problems associated with each point carefully and biblically in the light of scripture.

     However, we must, of necessity, first understand by way of definition what Protestants and Catholics mean by justification, if we are going to have a worthwhile, intelligent and fruitful discussion on these important aspects of salvation.

     Protestant:

     “Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner” (Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof , p. 513)

     “By justification is meant that act of God by which he imputes to (or credits to the account of) believers the perfect satisfaction and righteousness of Jesus Christ in such a way that all their sins are forgiven and they are considered perfectly righteous in the sight of God. We are justified in union with Christ.” (Saved By Grace y Anthony A. Hoekema, p. 61).

     According to scripture, the effects of justification upon those of us who are justified are twofold. On the one hand, having been declared righteous, we are forgiven of our sins and liberated from the negative consequences and punishment thereof (Romans 5:1-2; 8:30, 33-34). On the other hand, the positive benefits of being justified include both a legal standing as children of God (John 1:12; Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 3:26; 4:4-7) and the right to inherit eternal life (John 3:16; Titus 3:7).

     “Sanctification in the progressive sense (in distinction from its use in scripture, for example, 1 Corinthians 1:2 ; 6:11; Acts 20:32; 26:18; etc. in an important sense in which the New Testament authors depict sanctification also as definitive, occurring at a specific time rather than an extended period) may be defined as that work of God by which the Holy Spirit progressively renews the life of the believer and enables him or her to live to the praise of God. This aspect of salvation can only be experienced in union with Christ.” (Saved By Grace, Anthony A. Hoekema, p. 62)

     Catholic:

     “Justification means the process by which man is saved from his state of sin and reborn in Christ through sanctifying grace, a process which makes him just or right in the sight of God.” (New Catholic People’s Encyclopedia).

     “Justification is the event in which God, by a free act of love, brings man…into that relationship with him which a holy God demand of man…He does so by giving man a share in the divine nature. This happens when God causes the Holy Spirit…to dwell efficaciously in the depths of man’s being as the spirit of the adoption of sons, of freedom and of holiness, divinizing him, and gives him proof of this new creation.. through the word of faith and the signs of the sacraments. This justice, which is not merely imputed in judicial fashion but makes a man truly just, is at the same time the forgiveness of sins…There can be no reflective certainty of salvation for any individual…This justice, God-given and received, can also be lost if man rejects divine love by serious sin…Man can preserve and continually increase it [justification] “( Rahner and Vorgrimler’s “Dictionary of Theology, pages. 260-261, a recent Roman Catholic publication).

     Obviously, the Protestant and Catholic views of justification are vastly different. In the first [Catholic] instance, in distinction from the Protestant view, justification is called a process--a process which includes both rebirth and sanctification. In the second instance (definition), contrary to Luther’s formula (simul Justus et peccator)--his words “divinizing him” imply that the justified believer is not at the same time both righteous and a sinner; indeed, they suggest the possibility that the boundary between the creature and the Creator is being wiped out. Again, a process is clearly implied: “Man can both preserve and continually increase it [justification].”

     As we shall see upon examination, in these [Catholic] definitions of justification, which can be shown to be in basic disagreement with the Bible, we find many echoes of the teachings of Trent. We shall examine each in point form in detail”

     (1) In Roman Catholic Theology according to Trent, justification is thought of primarily as an infusion of grace which results in a change in man’s spiritual and moral nature, rather than a declarative act, in which God imputes the perfect righteousness of Christ to the believer. In other words, we would include remission of sins under justification and the renewal of the person under sanctification, whereas in the theology of Trent both remission and renewal are thought of as aspects of justification. For proof of this statement, please note the following quotes from Chapter 7 of Session 6 : “Whence the very act of being justified, at the same time that his sins are remitted, a man receives through Jesus Christ, to whom he is joined, the infused gifts of faith, hope and charity or love” (The Church Teaches, Documents of the Church in English Translation, by John F. Clarkson, p. 234): Though remission of sins is mentioned here, what is emphasized is the infused gifts of faith, hope and charity or love. Earlier in Chapter 7 again the point is put this way: “Justification is not only the remission of sins…but sanctification and renovation of the interior man through the voluntary reception of grace and gifts, whereby a man becomes just instead of unjust” (The Church Teaches, p. 233). In other words, justification is here described as not merely the remission of sins, but also as the sanctification and renewal of the inward man.
     
     What the teachings of Trent state in positive form regarding the decree of justification, the canons which follow the decree express in negative form: “If anyone says that men are justified either through the imputation of Christ’s justice alone, or through the remission of sins alone, excluding grace and charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the good will of God: let him be anathema” (The Church Teaches, p. 243).

     Here, contrary to the protestant position and the clear teaching of Romans 4:5-6, Rome explicitly denies that man is justified through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone. To the same effect is Canon 9: “If anyone says that a sinful man is justified by faith alone,…let him be anathema” (The Church teaches, p. 243).

     The fundamental view of the Roman Church is that a person starts out as a sinner, vile and wicked, but God’s grace infused into the person makes them one who is now pleasing to God. By this grace acting within the person, they become justified before God. This is in stark contrast to the Protestant view, which states that justification is a declarative and forensic act in which God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believer.

     The Catholic view of justification seems to confuse the two Protestant doctrines of justification and sanctification, and thus fails to properly distinguish between God’s declarative act of justifying the believer from the impartation of God’s Spirit and grace into the believer, whereby the spiritual condition and outward behaviour the believer changes. Protestants would include remission of sins under justification and the renewal of the person under sanctification, but Catholic theology considers both forgiveness and renewal as aspects of justification. By failing to make this clear distinction, Catholic theology tends to obscure the judicial aspect of justification and ties a person’s justification to good works and a change in behaviour.

     Although the doctrine of justification can never be separated from sanctification, they must be kept distinct. Understanding justification as a declarative act of God safeguards the precious teaching that we are saved by grace alone and not by works. But this understanding in no way excludes the renewing and transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God’s people.

     Moreover, it must be understood that justification is only one facet of our salvation. The person who is justified is at the same time one who is being renewed by the Holy Spirit. This renewal will indeed result in a life evincing the fruit of the Spirit by good works and a godly character. But this morally improved life is understood as a person's faith producing good works, not justification issuing from good works. These good works in no way enable a person to merit God’s gracious salvation (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16).

     (2). Another major difference between the Catholic and Protestant view of justification is that faith does not have central significance in Catholic thought, but occupies a subordinate place. The scriptures teach that we are justified by (throug