|
Catholicism
Dialog with a Roman Catholic Reader
Feedback to Christian Data Resources Re. Scott Hahn
It is easy to make assumptions and presumptions of one's thought
processes as you have of Scott Hahn's conversion story. However,
when you study other materials, Justification, Paul's Catholic Gospel,
or debates against other Protestant Minister's, such as the debate
with Dr. Knudsen, you see that your simple handling of "one-liners"
from Scott Hahn's conversion story do not suffice.
I am not a professional scripture scholar, merely a layman who has been
both in and out of the Catholic Church. It was the complete disregard
for obvious scriptural themes in non-Catholic bible studies that
brought me back to the Church.
I'm not a professional, but I can argue from the bible Justification,
and Church authority. I can point out the deficiencies in most of the many
different interpretations of Sola Fide (as if it means the same thing
in the 30, 000 different denominations). You can argue this all from the
bible alone, but then when you look at the historical church from the
writings of the early Church, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Iraneaus,
Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and the list goes on down through the
centuries;
the church is decidedly Catholic in its beliefs and interpretation of
the Holy Writ.
If you're open to an honest dialogue, I would be willing to discuss any
of these issues. As for being open minded until your brains fallout, I've
seen the brains of many close minded "intellectuals" spilled on the
floor unable to honestly answer hard questions Catholic Apologists have put
before them. The issue of "The Tradition of the Canon"
being one of the greatest. How many books belong in the New Testament, why do you believe
it is only the 27? Jesus, nor his Apostle's ever commanded that anything
be written, much less collected into one book? Simple questions, hard
answers.
p.s. Are you related to Steve Weber, author of "Tender Warrior"?
Response from Christian Data Resources Re. Scott Hahn
Thanks for your insights. Yes, I'm open to an honest dialogue. However,
due to my schedule, I hope that E-mail dialogue will suffice for you.
You're the second person to respond with an argument concerning the
tradition of the Canon.
Perhaps there is more to it than I realized,
and maybe you can help me to clarify the issue. I think the best way for me
to start is to take you through my previous experience on this subject.
Protestant View on the Canon of Scripture
The feedback for the Hahn article is documented on my web site, and you
can see where one reader responded as follows: "First, from your article
entitled, 'Where Did Our Bible Come From', comes the following quote:
'This Bible has stood the test of time, and I am satisfied with it by
my faith, but not by the scientific proof of human effort. Faith is
believing in things unseen. If there ever were scientific "proof" of the Canon,
I would not be able to accept it, otherwise my faith would no longer be
faith. It would then be believing in what we can see, and even an
unbeliever can do that.'" Then he goes on to cite what he felt was an
inconsistency by my calling for scientific proof of transubstantiation.
My response to him would have been (he wasn't in the mood for dialogue)
as follows: I think the difference is that scientific proof is possible on
the one hand, but not on the other. I believe it would be relatively
easy to scientifically verify or disprove transubstantiation. However, I
don't see how it's possible to scientifically prove God's intent for the
contents of the Canon.
Is this similar to the argument you're presenting, or have I missed the
point?
By the way, no, I'm no relation to the Steve Weber who wrote "Tender
Warrior."
Thanks,
Owen
Feedback to Christian Data Resources
Catholic View on Sola Scriptura (the Canon
of Scripture)
I'm not talking about scientific proof. The argument is based on the
Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that Scripture is wholly
sufficient, yet Scripture does not tell you what books should be included as
scripture. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever give us a list. While as Catholics
we agree that scripture is materially sufficient, and perfect, we do not
agree that it is the sole source of information. Why not? We agree that the New
Testament is true scripture and that it came from Jesus through the
Apostle's, but why? Christ never wrote or commanded the Apostle's to
write scripture. Once again, the Apostle's never gave us a list of Inspired
Writings, so how do you know what books belong and don't belong in the
New Testament? Well because of the Tradition of the Canon,
but that tradition was not solidified until the late 4th, early 5th Century. Here is an essay from my Webpage:
I'm glad you brought up Sola Scriptura, because I think it is the first
place to begin. I can argue Catholic theology from the bible alone, but
this always ends with one or the other person saying, "You are
misinterpreting the Sacred Writ", which is why there are over 30,000
non-Catholic Christian denominations claiming to be right, and claiming
to go by the bible alone.
It reminds me of what Luther said shortly before his death, echoing the
words of St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century:
"It appears that there are as many interpretations of the bible as there are men."
I hope this helps us to begin our conversation.
God bless you, with love in Christ Jesus.
Response from Christian Data Resources
Protestant View on Sola Scriptura
Thanks for your most recent note. I thought it best to respond by
editing your note below and responding to each item separately:
The article on my web site entitled "Where Did Our Bible Come From?"
addresses the issue of the Canon, including the Apocrypha.
I would argue that the Holy Spirit did "command" the apostles to write
the books of the New Testament, just as He did the prophets to write the
books of the Old Testament. The apostles were compelled by the Spirit (Acts
20:22, 1 Corinthians 9:16), and God is omnipotent (Matthew 19:26), so
He was able to use men to record His word as He purposed.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." God
inspired the writing of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures themselves
claim to be inspired. I believe that this claim of inspiration in a
faultless book is a very powerful argument.
In addition, I believe that it's quite amazing that the Bible
constitutes 66 books by 40 different authors, and yet it folds together
into one complete book. The odds are staggering that the 40 authors of
this large book agree with and complement each other even though most
of them didn't know each other, and some lived some 1300 years apart
from each other. It's almost as though, within the pages of Scripture,
He did give us a list.
In addition to the arguments in the aforementioned article, I would
cite Revelation 22:18 here: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the
plagues described in this book." Although some argue that this is only
referring to the book of Revelation, I interpret it in light of all the
scripture which had been inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that
God is omniscient (Psalms 147:4-5), and that he knew and foreordained His plan
of providing us with His Word (Exodus 5:16, Romans 9:17ff, Philippians
2:12ff). He knew what would be scripture, and when the last book was completed,
He put this ominous warning at the end of it.
I think it's fair to throw the ball back into your court for now. Why
should I believe that men today can provide new scriptures? Even if I
do, how do I know who to believe? In Matthew 24:5, Jesus said, "For many
will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive
many." Should I believe the Pope, or Joseph Smith, or David Koresh, or
those who claim to have the gifts of tongues or prophecy? I find any
argument here to be quite weak in comparison to the claim of
inspiration of the Scriptures.
Thanks,
Owen
Feedback to Christian Data Resources
Catholic View on Sola Scriptura
I've read your article on where we got the bible. I won't go into what
was said about the "Apocrypha" too much, as there is no need to muddy the
waters on the Old Testament, when I can argue my point on the New Testament
Canon alone, especially when you make some of the same questions in your
article that I proposed to you, without giving any answers:
Why don't we include the gospel of Barnabas?
One could ask why we don't include a whole host of books claiming to be
apostolic: The gospel of Peter, The gospel of Paul, The acts of Peter,
the acts of Paul, the gospel of Thomas. All 1st century books claiming
apostolicity, yet thrown out by two Church councils.
What about those books certain local churches rejected as you pointed
out: Hebrews, Revelations, 2 Peter, etc.? Why do we include them and not the
others? It is simply the tradition handed to us from two Church councils.
I might note, that while the purpose for Carthage was to re-emphasize
the New Testament Canon, the council did provide a list of Old Testament
books, as did Damascus, which included the "Apocrypha", and there are many
early Church Fathers who uphold this, St. Augustine included. Unlike the New
Testament, the need to "formally" include an Old Testament Canon did
not arise until the Reformation in the 16th century.
My point is all Protestants, some blindly, accept the "Tradition of the
Canon" as binding tradition apart from Scripture itself, which flies in
the face of Sola Scriptura which claims that scripture is not just
materially sufficient, but formally sufficient.
If God through the Holy Spirit can guarantee infallible books, why
would he not also guarantee an infallible decision on which books are
scriptural, and how they are to be interpreted, especially when he promises as much:
John 14: 16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another
Counselor, to be with you forever, Matthew 28: 20 teaching them to
observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always,
Please allow me to recap problems with Sola Scriptura, that have not been answered:
1. The Tradition of the Canon is truly binding tradition, which is found
outside of scripture itself. The canon was a decision by men who were,
either fallibly or infallibly considering the contents of a library
(which is where the word bible comes from), by which all Christian could turn
to know God and his will.
2. While a few books in the bible claim for themselves to be inspired,
most do not.
3. The bible itself professes that men need "stable leaders" to teach
them the truth of the word:
Hebrews 5:12 says, "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need
someone to teach you again the first principles of God's word."
Acts 8:30 says, "Do you understand what you are reading?" Then verse 31 says,
"How can I, unless someone guides me?"
2 Timothy 2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in
Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust
to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
4. The bible itself witnesses to the fact that Jesus built a Church, and
that Church has the authority to bind and loose here on earth:
Matthew 16:18... I will build my church, and the powers of death shall
not prevail against it.
Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Authorship denotes authority, where doe the authority to properly
interpret Scripture reside, with every individual, or groups of like-minded
individuals, or within the structures of the Church God created to
preach and teach the good news?
Response from Christian Data Resources
Protestant View on Sola Scriptura
Thanks for your latest note, and your patience with my
slow response. (Sorry, if I got a little carried away below,
but you must have struck a nerve.)
Inspiration
I'm a little concerned that your arguments sometimes sounded
as though you were arguing atheism instead of Catholicism, especially
when you cited that most books in the Bible don't claim inspiration. The
inspiration of the Bible ensures total inerrancy in both words and
thoughts. I don't see any errors
in it, and despite human efforts, it has consistently stood
criticism, and its truths have been confirmed by other writings
and archeology. However, it seems as though you have a lot of concern
about the set of books included in the Canon, so I need
to ask what may be a sensitive question: Do you reject the authority of
the Bible? Why or why not? If you reject its authority, then my arguments
are moot since you're rejecting the basis for what both Catholics and
Protestants believe about God. If you accept the authority of the Bible,
is it only because of direction from the Pope?
The Canon
I take exception with your statement that "The canon was a
decision by men, ..." Just as God used fallible men (filled with the
Holy Spirit) to write the books of the Bible without error, why
couldn't He have used the councils to finalize the Canon (again, this
is moot if inspiration
is rejected)?
Authority of the Bible
History has shown us why God chose the plan He did in
order to give us a closed Canon. Without it, His Word
would get polluted and distorted. Islam has added
the Koran; Christian Science has added "Science and Health
with a Key to the Scriptures"; Mormonism has added the
Book of Mormons and decrees by their apostles; Catholics
have added the Apocrypha and decrees by the Pope; and,
Charismatics have added new prophecies through tongues
and visions. Yet, our inspired Bible warns us about
these things:
- "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the
faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons" (1 Tim.
4:1).
- "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ferocious wolves" (Matthew 7:15).
- "Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.
For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will
deceive many" (Matthew 24:4-5)
- "At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and
hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many
people" (Matthew 24:10-11)
- "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or,
'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets
will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the
elect-- if that were possible." (Matthew 24:23-24)
- "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there
will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce
destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--
bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their
shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute." (2 Peter
2:1-2)
- "Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use
deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by
setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's
conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is
veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the
minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel
of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2-4).
- "Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in
order to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30).
- "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a
great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to
hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to
myths"
(2 Tim 4:3-4).
- ". . . always learning but never able to acknowledge the
truth" (2 Timothy 3:7).
- "Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him. To the Jews who had
believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really
my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you
free" (John 8:30-32).
Teachers
I think the weakest of your arguments has to do with
the fact that the Bible commands the teaching of God's
Word. Of course, the Bible is supposed to be taught,
but I don't think this can be stretched to include
extra-biblical sources from the Pope or others.
Interpretation
In response to your question about how we should properly
interpret the Bible, the Bible teaches that this responsibility
rests with the individual. Acts 17:11 says that the most
noble Christians were those who "examined the Scriptures every day to
see if what Paul said was true." He gave us His Word so we could know,
understand and believe the truth (John 17:17).
One of the blessings of salvation which God gives us is an individual
priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9). Ephesians 2:18 says, "For through him we
both have access to the Father by one Spirit." Hebrews 10:19-20 says,
"Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy
Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us
through the curtain, that is, his body, .. ."We're told to each carry
our own load (Galatians 6:5), just like Job (Job 19:4).
Protestant View on Tradition
I believe it is Catholicism, not Protestantism, that reveres
tradition. Mike Gendron says it better than me:
Over the years many traditions have crept into the Roman Catholic
Church, nullifying the Word of God and His saving grace. The following
list shows a steady departure over the years from the pure Gospel of
salvation. Each tradition goes directly against the truth of Scripture.
Roman Catholics are required to believe all the doctrines of their
church.
431 Proclamation that infant baptism regenerates the soul.
500 The Mass instituted as re-sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of
sin
593 Declaration that sin need to be purged, established by Pope Gregory
I.
600 Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints, and angels.
786 Worship of cross, images, and relics authorized.
995 Canonization of dead people as saints initiated by Pope John XV.
1000 Attendance at Mass made mandatory under the penalty of moral sin.
1079 Celibacy of priesthood, decreed by Pope Gregory VII.
1090 Rosary, repetitious praying with beads, invented by Peter the
Hermit.
1184 The Inquisitions, instituted by the Council of Verona.
1190 The sale of Indulgences established to reduce time in Purgatory.
1215 Transubstantiation, proclaimed by Pope Innocent III.
1215 Confession of sin to priests, instituted by Pope Innocent III.
1229 Bible placed on Index of Forbidden Books in Toulouse.
1438 Purgatory elevated from doctrine to dogma by Council of Florence.
1545 Tradition claimed equal in authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent.
1546 Apocryphal Books declared canon by Council of Trent.
1854 Immaculate Conception of Mary, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX.
1870 Infallibility of the Pope, proclaimed by Vatican Council.
1922 Virgin Mary proclaimed co-redeemer with Jesus by Pope Benedict XV. 1950 Assumption of Virgin Mary into heaven, proclaimed by Pope Pius
XII.
You nullify the Word of God by your traditions that you have handed down" (Mark 7:13)
(end of Gendron article)
Protestant View on Sola Scriptura
From Mike Gendron:
The Bible gives overwhelming evidence as to why Scripture must always
be our sole authority for faith. The Word of God is pure, perfect,
inerrant, infallible, living, truth, light, holy, eternal, and forever
settled in heaven. It illuminates, cleanses, saves, frees, guides,
converts, heals, quickens, judges, and sanctifies. It also brings
conviction, gives knowledge, gives wisdom, produces faith, refutes
error, searches the heart, equips for every good work, and is used as a
weapon. The Word of God is even exalted above the very name of God.
Have you read Psalm 138:2? Compare this with tradition ... Jesus told
the religious leaders of his day that their tradition was nullifying
the very word of God. Yet the religious leaders of today continue to do
the same and deceive their followers. Because of this we must take the
exhortation of Peter seriously ... that is we ought to obey God rather
than men.
For Christians, the Scriptures provide the only objective basis for
authority while the indwelling Holy Spirit provides illumination,
conviction and discernment. This dual authority, the Spirit of God
working with the Word of God, is sufficient in all matters of faith and
Christian living. Catholics, on the other hand, submit to a dual
authority of tradition and Scripture, under the subjective
interpretation of their church. The pope, speaking for the church, is
said to be infallible in matters pertaining to faith and morals. You
ask, "Where does it say that Scripture alone should be the authority
for faith?" Is "Sola Scriptura," the battle cry of the Reformers, found
in the Bible? There are at least nine biblical justifications for the
authority of Scripture alone:
1) All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and useful for
reproof and correction of error (2 Timothy 3:16). Since Scripture is
used to correct and reproof then it must be the authoritative standard
by which everything else is judged for its truthfulness.
2) Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34). The character
of God is on the line. "God is not a man that He should lie ... and
hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good (Numbers 23:19).
Submitting to the authority of God's revealed word will guide us in His
perfect will.
3) Christ used the authority of Scripture to rebuke Satan's attempt to
deceive Him (Matthew 4:1-11). He gave prepositional statements to
accurately convey the truth that Satan attempted to distort. Jesus was
our perfect model for rebuking deception.
4) Jesus used the authority of Scriptures to rebuke false teachers
(Matthew 22:29). The only way false teachers can be confronted and
exposed is in the power of God's Word.
5) Repented sinners are saved by hearing and believing the Word
(Ephesians 1:13-14). The integrity of the Gospel must be maintained and
proclaimed for true conversions.
6) Jesus prayed for Christians to be sanctified (set apart) by the
truth of His Word (John 17:17). Christians must separate themselves
from apostate churches and false teachers. God uses division to show
those in His approval (1 Cor. 11:19).
7) One must continually submit to the authority of Scripture to be a
disciple of Christ (John 8:31). Those who follow the traditions and
teachings of men are often led astray.
8) Christ rebuked the religious leaders for nullifying the Word of God
with their tradition (Mark 7:13). Any tradition that nullifies the
Scriptures must be exposed and renounced so others will not be deceived.
9) The Scriptures were written to all Christians, not to popes and
Magisterium to be interpreted for lay people. Anytime we allow others
to interpret God's word for us, we leave ourselves open to deception.
God foreknew the teachings and traditions of men would become corrupt
and would lead many astray. In His wisdom, He left us with His Word,
the only objective, absolute authority for truth, to lead us back to
Him. It is pure, powerful, perfect, inerrant, infallible, living, holy,
eternal, and forever settled in heaven. It illuminates, cleanses,
frees, guides, converts, quickens, judges, sanctifies, brings
conviction, gives wisdom, produces faith, and refutes error. Can you
describe tradition in the same way God describes His word? Why would you
want to add anything subjective to the objective standard God has given
us?
Catholics will also argue that we would not have the Bible today if it
were not for the Catholic Church. Did the Catholic Church really
determine
which books to include in the Bible and protect it throughout the
centuries? I believe we have the Bible today in spite of Rome, who kept
it hidden in a dead language for hundreds of years (Latin). In recent
history Catholic priests refused to absolve the sins of any person who
had possession of a Bible, until it was returned. Catholics must
consider the following facts about the Bible:
1) Since the books were written under the inspiration of God, they were
canonical the moment they were written. A council was not necessary to
affirm what was already true. No book became canonical by the action of
a church council. What the council did was determine which books did
not meet the tests for canonicity.
2) All the Old Testament books are quoted in the New Testament except
Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. None of the books of the
Apocrypha, which the Catholic Church added to its canon in the 16th
century, are quoted.
3) The New Testament books had certain tests for canonicity. They
either had to be written or backed by an apostle (Mark by Peter and
Luke by Paul). They also had to be circulated and accepted by the
majority of churches. By the second century only the 27 books that now
make up the NT were accepted by the people of God. Each book had to
reflect internal consistency and character with other Scripture.
4) Peter referred to the letters written by Paul as Scripture (2 Peter
3:16).
We have the infallible Word of God today because almighty God has
protected it and will continue to do so (Matthew 5:18).
(end of Gendron article)
Also, the following questions from my previous note remain unanswered:
Why should I believe that men today can provide new scriptures?
Even if I do, how do I know who to believe? In Matthew 24:5, Jesus said,
"For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am
the Christ,' and will deceive many." Should I believe the Pope, or
Joseph Smith, or David Koresh, or those who claim to have the gifts of
tongues or prophecy? I find any argument here to be quite weak in
comparison to the claim of inspiration of the Scriptures.
Thanks,
OwenResponse to Christian Data Resources
I usually don't allow myself to get side tracked from the issue
I am discussing, in this case Sola Scriptura, however I knew I had
seen this list before and I couldn't resist answering some common
objections, and errors promoted by this list.
I'm not sure if you've heard these arguments or not, or if you are
aware of the problems with the some of the dates, or the topics.
Have you ever read Karl Keatings book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism?
Most of this list is dealt with rather rapidly in chapter two of
Catholicism and Fundamentalism. The list is from a book Karl calls,
"The anti-Catholic Source Book", Lorraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism.
I have actually answered some of these objections before in an article
that used to appear on the Catholic Insight homepage.
I have provided the references we find in scripture, which are
confirmed as true apostolic teachings by the early church fathers.
Catholic View on Infant Baptism
431 Proclamation that infant baptism regenerates the soul.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, chapter 14
Mark 10:13 And they were bringing children to him, that he
might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them.(Picture) 14 But when
Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children
come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of
God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of
God like a child shall not enter it." 16 And he took them in his
arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the
promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off,
every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
The interesting thing about this verse, was the promise given to Abraham
Genesis 17, was initiated when the male child was an adult? No, eight
days old. There was a dispute in the early church, not as to whether
infants should be baptized, but should it occur on the eighth day:
St. Cyrian of Carthage - Letter of Cyrian and his Colleagues in the
Council to the number of sixty six to Fidus 251 A.D.
As to what pertains to the case of infants; you said they ought not be
baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the
old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you
did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the
eighth day after his birth. No one agreed to the course which you
thought should be taken. Rather, we all judged that the mercy and
grace of God ought not to be denied to any man born.
If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned
against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins
is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much
more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently
been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according
to Adam, ha has contracted the contagion of that old death from his
first being born. For this very reason does he approach more easily to
receive the remission of sins because the sins forgiven him are not his
own but those of another.
Jurgens, Fathers volume 1, pg 233
So, we see infant baptism being taught long before Boettner's 430 A.D. date.
Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city
of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God.
The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul.
15 And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us,
saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to
my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.
She was baptized with her household, this would include her husband
and children, even infants.
1 Corinthians 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanos.
Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
1 Corinthians 6: 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed,
you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
1 Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in
righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing
of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured
out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.
What are the effects of baptism? According to Paul: regeneration,
sanctification, and justification.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a
new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one
is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Now I've heard many people say "John 3:5 has nothing to do with
water baptism", but look at the evidence:
John 1:32 And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove
from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him;
but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you
see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the
Holy Spirit.'
In the immediate preceding text, Jesus is baptized with the
Spirit ("penuma", wind) descends (from above, "anothen") upon Jesus.
Jesus tells Nicodemus, unless you are born again ("anothen", from
above) you have no life in you, then of course comes John 3:5,
but then what happens immediately following the discourse with
Nicodemus and in the immediate context:
John 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the
land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.
John 3:25 Now a discussion arose between John's disciples and
a Jew over purifying. 26 And they came to John, and said to him,
"Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore
witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him." 27 John
answered, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from
heaven.
Immediately following the discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus does
what? He baptizes, and John the Baptist gives us the answer at
the back of the book:
"No one can receive anything except what is given him from
heaven." The Greek is he who is "anothen," from above.
We can argue back and forth as to whether my interpretation is
correct, but don't' take my word for it. What did the Christians
closest to the Apostles teach, some who were taught directly by
the Apostles?
St. Hippolytus of Rome - The Apostolic Tradition 251 A.D.
Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and
if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let
their parents or other relatives speak for them.
Jurgens, Fathers volume 1, pg 169
Origen - Homilies on Leviticus 244 A.D.
Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the
usage of the Church, Baptism is even given to infants. And indeed
if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins
and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism
would seem superfluous.
Jurgens, Fathers volume 1, pg 208
Origen - Commentaries on Romans 244 A.D.
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism
even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets
of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains
of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.
Jurgens, Fathers volume 1, pg 209
Catholic View on Transubstantiation
1215 Transubstantiation, proclaimed by Pope Innocent III.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg 42
Like the word Trinity, a technical word coined to teach the truth about
our belief in One God with three divine persons, each eternally God;
Transubstantiation is nothing more than a technical term coined
to explain the mystery of the bread and wine changing into the body and
blood of Christ.
The question then becomes did the Church invent the belief that the
bread
and wine become the body and blood of Christ: is Christ truly present
in the Eucharist and was this first taught in 1215? What does the bible
say, and what do the early church fathers say the Apostle taught
them regarding the Lord's Supper?
I intentionally broke up the following passages to facilitate my comments.
1 Corinthians 10:16 says, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a
participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is
it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one
bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one
bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the
sacrifices partners in the altar?"
The cup of Blessing, the third cup of the Passover liturgy is the cup
Jesus uses to establish the New Covenant which we celebrate. Look at
the words Paul uses, a participation in the body and blood of Christ. Does
he believe this is purely symbolic? No way, he immediately compares our
sacrifice, the Eucharist (bead and wine) to the pagan sacrifices: "are
not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"
We see the author of Hebrews (which I believe is Paul) making a similar
argument:
Hebrews 13:9 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings;
for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by
foods, which have not benefited their adherents. 10 We have an altar
from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.
Look at what he is implying: the food of their sacrifices does not
give grace, and they cannot eat of the food of our altar, which does
provide grace to strengthen our hearts.
1 Corinthians 11: 20 says, "When you meet together, it is not the Lords
supper that you eat."
The Lords Supper, instituted by Christ during the Passover liturgy.
1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also
delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was
betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke
it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this in
remembrance of me. 25 In the same way also the cup, after
supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do
this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For
as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim
the Lords death until he comes.
Standard stuff.
1 Corinthians 11:27 says, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks
the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of
profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine
himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For
anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and
drinks judgment upon himself."
If it is only a symbol, how can we be guilty of eating or drinking
in an unworthy manner? He tells us directly, anyone who eats and
drinks without discerning the body, Jesus' body, eats and drinks
judgment upon himself. Paul is teaching the real presence of
Christ in the Eucharist.
Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this
life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ,
who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which
is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of
Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their
opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the
Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the
Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which
suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness,
raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in
their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to
partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true
and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission
of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is
thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor
common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior
was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood
for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which
has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down
by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured,
is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"
(First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus of Lyons
"If the Lord were from other than the Father [and thus capable of
performing miracles], how could he rightly take bread, which is
of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body
and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?"
(Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]).
Irenaeus of Lyons
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood,
from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of
creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives
increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and
water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the
Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our
flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh
is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal
life - flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord,
and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid. 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
"'Eat my flesh,' [Jesus] says, 'and drink my blood.' The Lord
supplies us with these intimate nutrients, He delivers over his
flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the
growth of his children"
(The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Catholic View on Confession to Priests
1215 Confession of sin to priests, instituted by Pope Innocent III.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg 43
James 5:13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any
cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him
call for the elders (Presbyters from which the English word priest
is derived) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing
him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith
will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he
has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your
sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be
healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its
effects.
These verses cover two sacraments: anointing of the sick, and
confession. He will be forgiven; why, because the priest has
prayed over him.
Therefore, confess your sins to one another. Who is the one
another? The word "Therefore" ties this sentence back to the
previous sentence where we are told to call for a
presbyter.
Matthew 9:5 says, "For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are
forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk? 6 But that you may
know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive
sins"--he then said to the paralytic--'Rise, take up your
bed and go home.' 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the
crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God,
who had given such authority to men."
God has given men the authority to forgive sins:
John 20:2 says, "And when he had said this, he breathed on them,
and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive
the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of
any, they are retained.'"
Just as in John 3 we see Jesus baptizing through the apostles,
Jesus truly does forgive our sins through the priest.
Ignatius of Antioch
"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with
the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance,
return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong
to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ" (Letter
to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To
all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn
in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the
bishop" (ibid. 8)
Irenaeus of Lyons
"[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . .
Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of
these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to
do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the
hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or
hesitate between the two courses"
(Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an
exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I
presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation,
like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of
the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and
thus they perish along with their own bashfulness"
(Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
Tertullian
"[T]the Church has the power of forgiving sins. This I acknowledge
and adjudge" (ibid. 21).
Tertullian
"I hear that there has even been an edict set forth . . . The Great
Pontiff--that is, the bishop of bishops [i.e., the pope]--issues
an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged penance, the sins
both of adultery and of fornication" (Modesty 1 [A.D. 220]).
Hippolytus
"[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall
pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . Pour forth
now that power which comes from you, from your Royal Spirit,
which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he
bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant,
whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your
holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest,
ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your
face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the
Spirit of the high-priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins,
in accord with your command"
(Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215])
Origen
"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is]
the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does
not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from
seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, 'I said, "To
the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity"'"
(Homilies in Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Apostle likewise bears witness and says: ' . . . Whoever eats
the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty
of the body and blood of the Lord' [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the
impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their
sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their
crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony
and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to his body
and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the
Lord more than when they denied him"
(The Lapsed 15:1)
Cyprian of Carthage
"Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . .
confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward
manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of
conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who
has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while
his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and
remission made through the priests are still pleasing before
the Lord" (ibid. 28).
Catholic View on Praying to Mary
600 Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints, and angels.
The following is my fully biblical argument that was promptly
removed from the Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries Bulletin Board:
The idea of intercessory prayer to the Saints is not based on one
simple bible verse, a solitary proof text. The teaching comes to
us through the Apostle's and is evident in the writings of the
early fathers. The teaching is found in Scripture by dove tailing
several teaching that are apparent truths on their own.
You have been partitioning the arguments to attack the whole,
please allow me walk you through to show you how the teaching,
which was given to us through the Apostle's is found in Scripture.
As Christians, brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, we are all
part of the same body. Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13;
Colossians 3:15.
We are called to pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ,
and it is because we are united to the one mediator between God
and man that we can and do pray for one another: 1 John 5:16;
1 Timothy 2:1-5.
The saints are not dead, but alive in Christ. Something Jesus
taught quite plainly: Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:26, Luke 20:38.
We are all the body of Christ, but they are more perfectly united
to Christ than we are in our present state:
1 Corinthians 13: 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then
face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully,
even as I have been fully understood. 13 So, faith, hope, love abide,
these three; but the greatest of these is love.
The Saints in heaven are united in glory with God, and know what is
happening here on earth: Hebrews 12:1; Luke 9:30 And behold, two men
talked with him, Moses and Elijah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke
of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem.
Revelations 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living
creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each
holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the
prayers of the saints;
They are offering to the lamb, the prayers of the saints on earth
who are still undergoing trials.
Revelations 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar
the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for
the witness they had borne; 10 they cried out with a loud voice,
O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge
and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?
Again we see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, keenly aware of
what is happening on earth.
In 1 Samuel 28 we see Saul calling upon the prophet Samuel, who
had died a faithful servant of God, to help him resolve his
problems:
1 Samuel 28:11 Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for
you?" He said, "Bring up Samuel for me." 12 When the woman saw
Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman said to
Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul." 13 The king said
to her, "Have no fear; what do you see?" And the woman said to
Saul, "I see a god coming up out of the earth." 14 He said to
her, "What is his appearance?" And she said, "An old man is coming
up; and he is wrapped in a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel,
and he bowed with his face to the ground, and did obeisance.
15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by
bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress; for the
Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and
answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; therefore I have
summoned you to tell me what I shall do." 16 And Samuel said, "Why then
do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become
your enemy? 17 The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me; for the
LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your
neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD,
and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore
the LORD has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover the LORD
will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines;
and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the LORD will
give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines."
20 Then Saul fell at once full length upon the ground, filled
with fear because of the words of Samuel;
In Luke 16 the lord doesn't argue that those in Hades/Sheol (The
man is not in hell, a soul in hell has no capacity of love. This
man calls Abraham "Father", and Abraham calls him "Son".) can
intercede on behalf of us here on earth, he assumes we know it.
Now Vic made the argument, "this cannot be the same Lazarus who
was raised because of verse 26." However, verse 26 is in response
to the rich man's request to send Lazarus to him with water.
Afterwards the man petitions Abraham for a second favor:
27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my
father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may
warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
Does Abraham say, "No, he cannot go back there?"
No, he simply says, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them
hear them.'
Does the man stop his petition? No he continues: 'No, father
Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will
repent.'
Jesus isn't arguing that souls of the dead can make petitions
on our behalf, he assumes it.
In summation, all those who are united in Christ are called to
make prayers and supplications for one another, 1 Timothy 1-5.
Death does not separate us from Christ, but unites us more closely
allowing us to see him face to face, Revelation 5:8, 6:9;
Hebrews 12:1; Luke 20:38, 1 Corinthians 13:12. We who are in
Christ continue to pray for others when we die, Luke 16,
Revelations 5.
We have heard all the excuses why one argument doesn't stand by
itself here and there, but I hope I have showed, through a
comprehensive look of the scriptural references, where the
biblical evidence, for this truth delivered to us from the
Apostle's concerning prayers to the saints, exists in Scripture.
Once again the argument does not boil down to it is unscriptural,
but "I refuse to accept what the Church teaches regarding the
interpretation of scripture as true."
What does the early church teach regarding this practice:
Clement of Alexandria
"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also
prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and
he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has
the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]"
(Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
"But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who
pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of
the saints who have already fallen asleep"
(Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us
on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve
burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the
swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our
love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for
our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's
mercy" (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).
Anonymous
"Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray
anxiously for our sins" (funerary inscription near St. Sabina's
in Rome [A.D. 300]).
Anonymous
"Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year,
fifty-two days" (ibid.).
Methodius
"Hail to you forever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing
joy, for unto thee do I again return. Thou are the beginning
of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great
price that belongs unto the kingdom; the fat of every victim,
the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you
treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son's love
for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing mother, of
the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires
of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which
was conceived of thee . . . making manifest the mystery hidden
and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father--the Prince of
Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than
all littleness" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).
Methodius
"Therefore, we pray thee, the most excellent among women, who
glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you
would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of
God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in thee, and who
in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will ever live,
and never fade away" (ibid.).
Methodius
"And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host
of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the
faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom
you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together
with thee, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life
and death, saying, Thou art the true Light, proceeding from the
true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God" (ibid.).
Anonymous
"Mother of God, [listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us
in adversity, but rescue us from danger"
(Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of
those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs,
prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and
supplications God would receive our petition . . . "
(Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).
Hilary of Poitiers
"To those who wish to stand [in God's grace], neither the guardianship
of saints nor the defenses of angels are wanting" (Commentary on the
Psalms 124:5:6 [A.D. 365]).
Ephraim the Syrian
"Remember me, you heirs of God, you brethren of Christ; supplicate
the Savior earnestly for me, that I may be freed through Christ from
him that fights against me day by day" (The Fear at the End of Life
[A.D. 370]).
Ephraim the Syrian
"You victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the
God and Savior, you who have boldness of speech toward the Lord
himself, you saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of
sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of
all of us that so we may love him" (Commentary on Mark [A.D. 370]).
The Liturgy of St. Basil
"By the command of your only-begotten Son we communicate with the
memory of your saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon
us all, and deliver us for the sake of your holy name"
(Liturgy of St. Basil [A.D. 373]).
Pectorius
"Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet
mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish
[Christ]" (Epitaph of Pectorius [A.D. 375]).
Catholic View on Relics
786 Worship of cross, images, and relics authorized.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg 40
Catholic View on Canonization of Saints
995 Canonization of dead people as saints initiated by Pope John XV.
1000 Attendance at Mass made mandatory under the penalty of moral sin.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, chapter 20
Hebrews 10:25-26 is a classic example of Paul teaching this in Scripture.
Catholic View on Celibacy of Priests
1079 Celibacy of priesthood, decreed by Pope Gregory VII.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg 41
Catholic View on the Rosary)
1090 Rosary, repetitious praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit.
1184 The Inquisitions, instituted by the Council of Verona.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, chapter 23
Catholic View on Indulgences
1190 The sale of Indulgences established to reduce time in Purgatory.
1229 Bible placed on Index of Forbidden Books in Toulouse.
Unfortunately, Lorraine Boettner, who only produced vague, and very
few, references made errors:
First, The index was established in 1543.
Second, there has never been a Church council held in Valencia Spain,
and if there had been it could not have occurred in 1229 as Valencia was
held by the Moors up to the year 1238.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg 45
He deals with the objection in more detail than I have here.
Catholic View on Purgatory
1438 Purgatory elevated from doctrine to dogma by Council of Florence.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, chapter 16
Catholic View on Tradition
1545 Tradition claimed equal in authority with the Bible by the Council
of Trent.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, chapter 10
Catholic View on the Apocrypha
1546 Apocryphal Books declared canon by Council of Trent.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg 46
Catholic View on the Infallibility of the Pope
1870 Infallibility of the Pope, proclaimed by Vatican Council.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, chapter 18
Catholic View on Mary
1922 Virgin Mary proclaimed co-redeemer with Jesus by Pope Benedict XV.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, chapter 22
1950 Assumption of Virgin Mary into heaven, proclaimed by Pope Pius XII.
Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, chapter 22
I can go into more detail or answer any of your questions on most of these,
but as you can see, this got very long winded just answering a few
objections, and I couldn't go into great detail or answer all the
objections you might have to what I've written in this letter.
Response to Christian Data Resources:
I do not know if you have had a chance to read through all of these
Biblical and Apostolic Teachings found in the Catholic Church. I know I
covered a large amount of information: Baptism, the Eucharist,
confession to a Priest, and the communion of Saints.
I would be interested in any feedback or direct objections to the
comments I made on these subjects, or the biblical references I gave.
I was wondering if I could also get you to comment on your
interpretation of Luke 2:35 where Simeon inspired by the Holy Spirit says:
34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this
child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign
that is spoken against 35 (and a sword will pierce through your own
soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed."
Response from Christian Data Resources
Protestant View on Infant Baptism
Mark 10:13-16 - Refers to salvation, not infant baptism.
Genesis 17 - Refers to circumcision, not infant baptism.
Acts 16:14 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 - There's no indication of infants
here. If anything, 1 Corinthians 1:16 indicates that Paul did not place
major emphasis on water baptism, as Catholicism does.
1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5, 2 Corinthians 5:17 - These refer to the
Baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism, and definitely not infant baptism.
The Scriptures speak of seven baptisms (the baptisms of:
- Moses
- John the Baptist
- Jesus
- The cross
- Fire
- The Holy Spirit
- Water
If these are confused (such as
the baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism),
great distortions of scripture can, and do, result.
Protestant View on Transubstantiation
1 Corinthians 10:16, 11:23, 27 - What do these verse say was eaten?
Bread (not Christ's body). Also, there is no mention of any "mystery" of transubstantiation.
We have no reason to ignore the symbolism here while we respect
it in verses where Jesus makes analogies about "being" other
inanimate objects, like John 6:41,48,51 (bread), John 8:12, 9:5
(light), John 10:9 (gate), John 10:11,14 (shepherd), and John 15:1,5 (vine).
Protestant View on Confession to Priests
John 20:2 - No, this verse doesn't say that "God has given men the
authority to forgive sins," as you say. "It was not the work of the
disciples to forgive sins, but the work of the Holy Spirit
through the disciples as they fulfilled the Great Commission
(Matthew 28:18-20). Christ gave the disciples authority to
state that forgiveness of sins was possible." Falwell, pg. 2123.
Protestant View on Praying to Mary
Your arguments indicate a confusion between intercessory
prayer and prayer to saints. Furthermore, prayer to Mary
isn't mentioned anywhere. I suppose I have an aversion to
trying to make Scripture say what we would like to believe (which
is usually possible, with enough effort), when the true message
is so clear by just reading the Scriptures and believing what
we read (Matthew 18:3). Why must we employ complex algorithms
of possibly-connected verses that most people can't understand?
This technique tries to force Christianity into the errors of
the ancient Babylonian mystery religions, Mormonism, Greek
Allegorism, and Masonry. Why build a matrix of scripture
connections to show that we should pray to the saints, when
hundreds of verses clearly indicate we should pray to God,
the Father?
Concerning Luke 2:34-35, I don't know what you're looking for here,
but here's my interpretation: Simeon told Mary that her son
would face tremendous opposition, and this would hurt her, like
a sword piercing her soul. Her son would cause many to rise
(accept salvation) and many to fall (reject salvation), and
these consequences would reveal what they really thought about
her son. (What are you looking for?)
Thanks,
Owen
Response to Christian Data Resources
I am responding in the love of Christ, so I hate to sound adversarial,
but I notice you did not make any comments on my interpretations of Jesus
Baptism through his baptizing (through the Apostle's) found in the Gospel of
John chapters 1 through 4 and Acts 2:38; nor did you have anything to say
regarding James 5:14-16 in the terms of the anointing of the sick and
confession. In fact the only comments you made were, what I call
standard arguments, the same ones I hear over and over again, arguments based on
the presumption of the Protestant interpretation of the Gospel.
Catholic View on Infant Baptism
One of the best prophecies of Baptism in the Old Testament is Ezekiel
36:24-27.
Ezekiel 36:24-27 - 24 For I will take you from the nations, and gather
you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean
water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from
all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a
new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the
heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within
you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my
ordinances.
Notice the effects of this future oath (sacrament) of God, unlike the
Old Testament rites which were not efficacious, the New Covenant rites do
what they signify, precisely because it is God the Son through the Holy
Spirit who performs the act.
The early Church from the earliest recordings showed that it was through baptism that the stains of
original sin were removed, and that we are saved by Jesus Christ
through baptism Romans 6, but made much more plain by in 1 Peter 3:20-21
Romans 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him
by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the
glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Notice Paul doesn't make the argument that this is just the baptism of
the Holy Spirit, something added to Paul's word by the Protestant
presumption.
1 Peter 3:20-21...that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of
dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through
the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As I pointed out, the early church recognized baptism as the oath by
Christ that washes away original sin, and brings us in, literally makes a born
anew into the family of God, and should be extended to infants and children.
In other words all the early Christian writings we have interpret the
bible as the Catholic church does, which brings us to Genesis 17:
I know Genesis 17 refers to circumcision, but what
did circumcision symbolize? Entrance into the Family of God through the
oath (sacrament is the Latin word for oath) made to Abraham. You were
initiated into God's family as a child at days old; now like the early
Church, the first people to receive this oath (sacrament) were all
adults, the youngest being Ishmael who was 13 years old, and it did not
preclude adult converts from receiving this oath, but I'm sure it did discourage
it.
In Acts 2:38 Peter proclaims:
8 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your
children...
Notice that the Bible speaks very clearly about the effects of baptism,
and it doesn't make the false presumption that this means "baptism in the
Holy Spirit". When Jesus is baptized in water the Holy Spirit ascends from
above ("anothen") on Jesus, and when Jesus is teaching Nicodemus he doesn't
separate them, he puts the two events together just as he did in John 1:
John 3:5 I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he
cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Once again the earliest writings applied this to all people including children.
In Acts 16:14 and 1 Corinthians 1:16, Paul is arguing against the
people bickering over the fact that I was baptized by so and so, and
their superiority over those baptized by someone else. He is not arguing that
Baptism is unimportant. Secondly, nowhere does Paul make the separation
between baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism as Protestants would have him make.
If he does, then why does Paul use the allegory of "washing": "But you
were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified ", "by the washing of
regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"? If Paul made this
distinction Protestants have him making, then why does he not say what you would
expect him to say, that is why doesn't he leave off the allegory to washing,
which is done with water, which is what Jesus, Ezekiel, and Peter plainly say
elsewhere, and to which all the early church writings testify?
Why the reference to washing, if Paul makes the distinction you expect him to make?
1 Corinthians 6:11 - 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed,
you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Titus 3:5 - he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in
righteousness, but in virtue
of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the
Holy Spirit,
(emphasis mine) James White has refused to answer the question, Why
does Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit use the allegory of washing with the
reference to sanctification, justification, and regeneration which
would imply the effects of water baptism as found in the early writings of
the
church.
"His answer to me, don't you think I understand what the Greek text is
saying?" Implying that because I don't I am the one who fails to see
the true understanding. However, as I pointed out to him, that breaks the
precepts of the Baptist religion which states that "All men" can come
to know the full truth through a basic reading of the bible. In essence,
his answer was a non-answer, he refused to answer the question: why does
Paul say something Protestants adamantly deny?
I will cover the other two issues, Confession and the Eucharist after
we finish our discussion on Baptism.
Response From Christian Data Resources
Protestant View on Infant Baptism)
About the baptism of the Holy Spirit, it appears that this is
the big issue here; i.e., the baptism of the Holy Spirit and water
baptism, rather than infant baptism. I disagree that Paul
makes no separation between the baptism of water and that of the
Holy Spirit. I would cite 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 as a proof text:
"12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though
all its parts are many, they form one body. So, it is with Christ.
13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews
or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to
drink."In my view Paul is clearly speaking of the baptism of
the Holy Spirit as the all-important means of being placed into
the body of Christ. When we are baptized (identified) by the Holy
Spirit, we are placed "in Christ" (identified with Him). Romans 6:3
says, "3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death?"This was clearly prophesied by John
the Baptist in Luke 3:16:"16 John answered them all, "I baptize you
with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose
sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy
Spirit and with fire."This indicated that something greater than water
baptism would come--the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In John 14:16, Jesus
promised the coming of the Holy Spirit, "16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you
another Counselor to be with you forever."
By contrast, water baptism is a beautiful symbol of the baptism
of the Holy Spirit which occurred previously when the sinner believed
the gospel. Acts 16:30-31 says, "30 He then brought them out and asked,
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They replied, "believe in the
Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."John 3:16
says, "16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only
Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
life." John 3:36 says, "36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life,
but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains
on him." The water symbolizes Jesus, with whom we are identified when
we believe the gospel message. As a proof text here, I would offer Acts
10:47-48: "47 'Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They
have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.'48 So, he ordered that
they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to
stay with them for a few days."Obviously,
these people had previously been baptized with the Holy Spirit
and entered the body of Christ when they had believed, and now
it was legitimate for them to offer a public symbol of what had
happened to them through water baptism. It is through believing
(repenting, or changing one's mind) through faith (and the associated
baptism of the Holy Spirit) that places us into the body of Christ, not
through water baptism or any other physical (work) ritual.
You asked, "Then why does Paul use the allegory of "washing?"
Probably to stay consistent with all the other allegories in
the Scriptures, such as physical circumcision being a symbol
of the removal of the flesh from the heart. Romans 2:28-29 says "28 A
man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision
merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one
inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit,
not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from
God." Just as the baptism
of the Holy Spirit is the real baptism, and water baptism is a
symbol of it, so is physical circumcision a symbol of circumcision
"by the Spirit." In Galatians 6:5, Paul says, "15 Neither circumcision
nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation."
He also said, in Philippians 3:3, that we shouldn't put confidence in
these fleshly rituals: "3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who
worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no
confidence in the flesh." In John 6:63, Jesus said,
"63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I
have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."
In fact, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 in itself contains an allegory:
". . . we were all given the one Spirit to drink." Why does Paul use an
allegory? To help us understand something we can't see physically by
comparing it with something that we can--a normal use of allegories.
Ironically, I also rely upon a different interpretation of one of the
very Scriptures you used, 1 Peter 3:21:"21 and this water symbolizes
baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body
but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. . ."
What is the water? Peter plainly says it's a symbol of something that
actually has saving power. What is it a symbol of? The baptism that has
already occurred:the baptism of the Holy Spirit, when the sinner
believed the gospel. In fact, he's emphatic
to state that he's not talking about the baptism of the body
into water: "not the removal of dirt from the body." This
baptism (of the Holy Spirit) saves one through faith, through the power
of the resurrection of Christ. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "8 For it is by
grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves,
it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."
Galatians 2:16 says, "16 know that a man is not justified by observing
the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So, we, too, have put our faith
in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by
observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be
justified."
In regard to my previous silence on Jesus' baptizing in John 1-4
and Peter in Acts 2:38, my interpretation says that Jesus and Peter
(as well as John the Baptist and the other apostles), called for
repentance (the change of mind, or faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) which saves
the sinner, by Acts 16:31), and the consequential baptism of the Holy
Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:12-13) to be placed into the body
of Christ, to be followed by a public and symbolic display of their
faith through water baptism. Again, we're saved through faith
(Ephesians 2:8-9), not water (1 Peter 3:21). Regardless of this
point, I see no Biblical reason for St. Cyrian to draw a direct analogy
between water baptism and infant circumcision (which also had no saving
power (Romans 2:28-29)). Neither do I see a single instance
in the Bible where an infant was baptized. I know this doesn't make
you happy, but neither "household" nor "children" implies "infant."
In Mark 10:13-16, which you cited, people brought their children to
Jesus, He touched their children, He told the others to let the
children come to him, He held them, He put his hands on them, and He blessed
them, but it doesn't say that He baptized them, that they were infants,
or that water baptism followed the same rules as circumcision.
Protestant View on Confession to Priests)
You also asked about my silence regarding James 5:14-16 and confession
to priests. Have we suddenly changed topics again, or did you not want
to finish baptism first? Anyway, in all honesty, my silence was probably
due to my lack of confidence in defending my views from this passage.
My personal experience tells me that the book of James contains some of
the most difficult passages for a Protestant to defend.(I'm giving you
some credit here, but I can't say I agree, because the Holy Spirit
hasn't taught me everything I need to know yet. Yes, I think you have
the upper hand here, but rather than a crack in my armor, we should just consider
that I'm still learning.) My official stance is that my hermeneutics
doesn't allow me to structure an entire doctrine on a single isolated
scripture text. I must admit that it says "elder" which implies what we
would call the clergy ("priest" for you, and "pastor" for me). However,
the confession part is "one to another," not to the elders or
priests. Even so, my view is inconsistent because of my adherence to the
priesthood of the believer (1 Peter 2:5,9), the
privacy of that personal priesthood (Galatians 6:5), the nature of sin
being against God rather than against not men (Psalms 51:4), and the
imperative to confess directly to God (1 John 1:9). I suppose you
could argue that I err here, and that my error is the reason I have
sometimes prayed for a sick person who was never healed. How about
you?Given your interpretation, have you found that you can claim
James 5:16 and see physical healing through confession in every case?
Thanks,
Owen
Separate Feedback From Other Readers
Catholic View on Sola Scriptura
1) This is the true fact: Evangelicalism finds its roots in the
sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther
(1483-1546) has developed two "Sola" doctrines. The first
of these was "Sola Scripture", stating that the Scriptures
alone were sufficient to provide all knowledge that God
wanted Christians to have for salvation, the church, and
the Christian life. According to this view, the Bible
interprets itself, and anyone can come to a full knowledge of God's
word by the help of the Holy Spirit, in other
words, through individual interpretation and private
judgment. It denies that any ecclesiastical authority
can be binding upon the conscience. It was a reductionist
reaction to the Catholic view of Scriptures and Sacred
tradition.
Catholic View on "Sola Fide"
The second doctrine was "Sola fide" which meant that
salvation was attained by faith alone. Martin Luther,
in translating the Book of Romans into the German language inserted the
word "alone" to explain the word
"faith" (e.g. Rom. 3:28; 5:1) where the Greek original
did not call for it..
The pivotal text was Romans 3:28. The inclusion of the
word "alone" radically altered the meaning of the text
and Paul's thought. Calvin said the whole of the
Reformation would stand or fall on that verse and the
newly devised interpretation.
Luther's two new doctrines eventually ruptured the unity
of the Reformation movement and from there, you have
Calvin.......until R.A. Torrey in 1903...
From 1546 to the current time, there are approximately
25,000 Christians denominations with different beliefs
and about 5 new more denomination every month. This
is hardly close to what you wrote "He (Martin) elevated
grace... Whereas the Catholic Church (Catholic means
universal) remains steady growth to about 1 Billion
worldwide now and still growing...
The very bedrock upon which Protestant theology is
founded became crumbled. A house build on sand will
eventually show signs of serious structural problems
(Mt. 7:24 - 25). Sola Scripture is nowhere taught
in Scripture, nowhere even implied. The closest I
came to establishing a biblical case for "Sola
Scripture" was 2 Timothy 3:16 which was certainly
not intended by St Paul as a proof text for the sole
sufficiency of Scripture. In fact, if it were used in
that way, the text would prove too much, since the term
"Scripture" in this passage is referring to the Old
Restatement (there was no new Testament yet) and would
thereby exclude the New Testament from the proof
Jesus never promised us an authoritative book, nor did
his apostles; rather he promised us a SINGLE AUTHORITATIVE and VISIBLE
Church (see Mt 16:18 - 19;
18:17; Tim 3:15; 5:17)
Catholic View on Celibacy of Priests
2) This is the true fact:Take a look at 1 Cor. 7:7-9, Paul said
that he thought celibacy was the best state in which to be
(1 Cor. 7:26), noting that "he who is unmarried is concerned
with God's claim, asking how he is to please God; whereas
the married man is concerned with the world's claim, asking
how he is to please his wife" (1 Cor. 7:32-33). When a man
becomes a Catholic priest, he knows that he will not be able
to marry. Marriage is a good thing (in fact Catholic acknowledge
Christ elevate marriage to a sacrament), but it is something
priests are willing to forgo for the sake of being better priest.
No one is forced to be a priest or a nun so no Catholic is
forced to be celibate. Celibacy is a disciplinary, not a
doctrinal injunction.
Catholic View on Martin Luther
3) This is the true fact:Martin Luther's name, when written in
Latin, also tallies 666, as do hundreds of other names. Bill
Gates' name also is 666.
4) I would like to invite you to read a few Great Convert
Stories by Prominent former Fundamentalist, Baptist,
Methodist and Anglican Pastors who have converted to the
Catholic Church after studying Scripture
1) Rome Sweet Home by Dr. Scott Hahn (Former Methodist Minister and Theology Professor)
2) Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie (Former Fundamentalist preacher)
3) Crossing the Tiber by Stephen Ray (Former Baptist Minister)
4) The King's Highway by Kenneth Guidon (Former Jehovah's Witness Elder)
5) A Memory for Wonders by Veronica Le Goulard (Former Marxist atheist)
6) Newman: Towards the Second Spring by Michael Finch (Newman was a former Anglican Priest - a Theology
professor at Oxford University in England)
The phone number to order those books is 1-800-651-1531 or you can buy them at any Catholic Bookstore
May the Holy Spirit bless you and remain in you forever, and one last statement
How can a Satan Church produce people like Mother Theresa who dedicated her entire life to practice what Jesus taught.
Jesus said you can tell the tree by its fruit......
Catholic View on Martin Luther and Sola Fide
If anyone would take the time to study the real truth about Martin
Luther, they would not call him a hero of anything. He was a vile
wicked man. He was drunk, he had a filthy, vulgar mouth. Even his
friends could hardly stand the garbage that came out of his mouth. He
had no respect for women. The bible says plenty about breaking vows to
God, but he caused many nuns and priests to
forsake their vows, even going so far as to marry one himself. He had
little use for many books of the bible, especially the ones that didn't
agree with his heretical doctrines. As far as faith "alone", he added
that word himself. It was not in the original Greek. These are his own
words "If your Papist annoys you with the word [alone],
tell him straightway: Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass
are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let
him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it
without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a
doctor above all the doctors in Popedom." I feel sorry for Protestants who sit
and listen to the lies their pastors tell them about the Catholic
Church and are too lazy to study and find out the truth for themselves.
Some of the greatest protestant theologians studied the Catholic Faith
to prove it wrong and ended up converting themselves. Read about the
"Oxford Movement." Anyone who wants to learn
the truth about Luther can read "The Facts About Luther"
by Tan Publishers. The Truth shall set you free.
Feedback to Christian Data Resources
Catholic View on Transubstantiation
I was reviewing some of the articles on your Christian
Data Resources web site and I discovered the following
blatant inconsistency in an argument you used to both
defend a doctrine you profess while at the same time to
attack a Catholic belief you do not profess.
Let me quote from the articles I am referencing.
First, from your article entitled, "Where Did Our Bible
Come From", comes the following quote.
"This Bible has stood the test of time, and I am satisfied
with it by my faith, but not by the scientific proof of
human effort. Faith is believing in things unseen. If there
ever were scientific "proof" of the Canon, I would not be
able to accept it, otherwise my faith would no longer be
faith. It would then be believing in what we can see, and
even an unbeliever can do that."
Then, from you book review of Rome Sweet Home by Dr. Scott
and Kimberly Hahn you attack his belief in the actual
presence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Holy
Eucharist with the following statement.
"I'm curious if the Catholic church would be willing to subject
this miracle to scientific examination before and after the
"miracle" of transubstantiation."
Perhaps your Catholic brethren are also, to cite you, satisfied
with it by their faith and not by the scientific proof of human
effort! Their faith is believing in things unseen, just like you.
Or perhaps they are curious if you would be willing to subject
the Bible to scientific examination for proof of its divine and
inspired nature! Which according to your own words would result
in your inability to accept it. Which way would you have it?
You can't have it both ways!
You see, by basing your faith on a Bible only basis, you are
believing in only what you can see because all you can see are
inanimate words of ink printed on unliving paper. The Word of God
is alive and can be found in completeness only in his established
Church on earth, the Holy Catholic Church.
It is gratifying to see web sites like yours dedicated to the
spreading of the good news and I encourage the well-meaning of
your effort. But please be more consistent in your arguments
defending your faith. Inconsistencies like the one I have pointed
out to you lessen the effect of the good news. The tone of some
of your articles and your shameful disrespect directed at the
character of Dr. Hahn and his wife also gives away your anti-
Catholic bigotry and your mean spiritedness.
If you care to respond to this note, my email address is
. . . I do not intend to turn this into a debate. If
you respond, I more than likely will not respond again.
Have you ever read in Matthew the story of the last judgment
and how and why people are judged? What does Revelation say
about Books and judgment? What does James say about faith
without works? Once you separate faith and works (which always
go together) you cease being biblical. Faith does not save us,
nor do works nor does faith alone in Jesus. Faith means I have
to do something--that makes it a work. Nope--we are saved in
Jesus Christ only, since only He died.
Catholic View on Imputation
THE PROTESTANT THEOLOGICAL ERROR OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMPUTATION OF
THE
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST AS THE METHOD AND IMMEDIATE GROUND OF
JUSTIFICATION
I am indebted to those anointed with reformational insight for leaving
me with the legacy of Sola Scriptura and, in principle, Sola fide. But
during the process of developing a doctrine of justification by faith, the
Protestant Reformers overreacted to their own correct moral and
theological perceptions and imported the concept of the "imputed righteousness of
Christ" into their new formulation. This concept alleges that the
"alien"
righteousness of Christ , that is, Christ's own sinless life and
righteous
death, are imputed to a believer as the believer's righteousness by
faith,
thereby making a believer righteous and justifying him. This idea gave
certain relief to hungry souls rotting in the stench of indulgences and
absolution,but not lasting liberty from the practice of sin. Not
surprisingly, Protestantism historically has oscillated between
antinomianism and legalism while searching for a real existential
experience of righteousness, which the conscience intuitively knows is
necessary for justification, but which the doctrine of the imputation of
Christ's righteousness does not grant. Scholasticism and Aristotelian
logic also nurtured this idea by creating a framework out of which the
Protestant Reformers bifurcated justification and sanctification
through the ensuing formulation of a discrete, sequential ordo salutis, which
Protestants subsequently ratified, adopted and further developed. And
today this idea persists due to scriptural errors inadequately
challenged. Our mutual love for souls and of Sola Scriptura bids us as
Protestants to further reform the Doctrine of Justification by Faith.
The Westminster Confession defines the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in this way:
"Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies: not by
infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and
accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything
wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, nor by
imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical
obedience to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience
and satisfaction of Christ to them, they receiving and resting on Him and his
righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is
the gift of God."
There is truth here, but it is seriously weakened because of the following:
1. Although "to justify" (Gr. dikaioo) is certainly forensic and does
not mean "infused" righteousness, it is wrong to say that we are justified
"for Christ's sake alone" apart from anything He works in our
hearts. The immediate ground of the forensic declaration of justification is our
own actual righteousness produced in our lives by participation in the
death and resurrection of Christ (remote ground) by faith: "For if we have
been united with him in the likeness of his death, much more shall we also
in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom 6:5).
2. It is wrong to imply that "believing" is a "work" which must be
denied
status as imputed righteousness. Faith is a gift of grace which becomes
our faith out of which good works are produced, and is itself not a
work. Therefore, it is altogether fallacious to lump faith together with
acts of
righteousness and call them all "evangelical obedience".
3. The popular belief that believers will be saved in the Day of
Judgment
because of being "clothed with the righteousness of Christ" is
unscriptural. Believers, however, will be clothed with garments in the
Day
of Judgment, but those garments will be their own righteous deeds
(dikaiomata). Rev. 19:8 states: "And it was given unto her that she (the
church) should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the
fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints". Furthermore, other texts
also teach that in the Day of Judgment our deeds and words will be the
ground of justification: Matt. 12:36-37, Matt. 16:27, John 5:28-29,
Rom. 2:6, James 2:21-25, 2 Cor 5:10-11, Rev. 20:11-15, 1 Pet. 1:17.
4. There is no sound exegetical basis for reversing Paul's clear
formulation that faith itself is imputed as righteousness. The
Westminster Confession explicitly states that justification occurs "not by imputing
faith itself". But that is exactly what Rom. 4:3, Gal. 3:6 and Genesis
15:6 explicitly state: "And Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to
him
(for) righteousness." Faith was imputed for righteousness, not the
righteousness of Christ. The grammar of the sentence indicates that the
direct object is Abraham's faith. Technically, there can be no
grammatical object with a passive. However, the subject of a passive verb is the
object of the action. Even more compelling is the fact that the subject
of the discourse is Abraham's faith, which is referred to no less than six
times, and there is no mention of the righteousness of Christ in the
entire chapter. Yet most Protestant theologians read the "righteousness of
Christ" into the passage. If the grammar is slightly ambiguous, the
context isn't, which Dr. Moo omits in his commentary. Dr. Moo also
over-theologizes "eis" (as he does also by implication to the Hebrew
"le") and reasons that the text means "to account to him a righteousness that
does not inherently belong to him". According to Dr. Moo,"eis" carries
with it the idea of "Christ's righteousness". But that is an exegetical
error. "Eis" does not have enough semantic capital to carry this idea,
and he imports "Christ's righteousness" into the passage. Also, if the
preposition in Rom. 4:3 is important for Dr. Moo's theory, why does
Gen. 15:6 omit the preposition? In addition, the OT texts Dr. Moo cites do
not support his assertion that God accounts to Abraham "a righteousness
that does not inherently belong to him." In Lev. 7:18 the unwillingness of
the Lord to "impute" the sacrifice of a vow was because the flesh of the
sacrifice was eaten on the third day, and thus the sacrifice offered by
this Israelite would "not be accepted" because it was an "abomination".
The Israelite that ate on the third day was morally unfit, and for that
reason did not have the benefits of a righteous sacrifice imputed to
him. The same principle applies in Numbers 18:27-30: Even though the
Levites did not literally offer up grain from the threshing floor, it was imputed
to them as such because it was the reward for their "service" (Num.
18:31). They were to reckoned with the grain of the threshing floor
because they were morally fit to receive such a reckoning. Dr. Moo also uses the
example of Shimei, and states that "Shimei is asking David to reckon or
regard him in a way that does not correspond with the facts of the
case." Contrary to Dr. Moo's belief, 2 Samuel 19:20 does not qualify as
a "parallel" passage to Rom. 4:3. First, God is the one who reckons
Abraham in Rom. 4:3 and David's reckoning of Shimei may or may not be parallel
to God's. Second, Shimei himself is asking David not to impute his sin to
him, and Shimei may or may not be asking parallel to what God would do.
Third, Shimei is merely asking, and not making a declaration, whereas
in Rom. 4:3 God made a definitive declaration about Abraham. Fourth,
David's acquittal of Shimei's sin is because of Shimei's righteousness shown by
his now humble heart, not in spite of it. Fifth, these are different
passages dealing with different issues. Can Dr. Moo assert, without forcing his
theology into the passage, that Shimei's request and David's reckoning
of Shimei is prescriptive as to the nature of the imputation that
justifies a sinner and "accounts to him a righteousness that does not inherently
belong to him". Lastly, Dr. Moo uses the example of Phinehas described in Ps
106:30-31. However, as with the other passages, this does not prove Dr.
Moo's assertion. The reason is that Phinehas was declared righteous
precisely because he had done something righteous, an evidence that he
had faith in God. Phinehas stood up and executed judgment on the man and
the Midianitish woman and thus turned God's wrath away from Israel. And
precisely because of this obedience he was reckoned as righteous by God.
These passages do not teach that righteousness is inherent, but neither
do they teach that the reckoning was done apart from the moral and ethical
condition of the object of that reckoning, and therefore do not support
the notion that what is imputed to a sinner is "a righteousness which does
not inherently belong to him." There is both a true and false statement in
this assertion. God did not justify Phinehas based upon an "inherent"
righteousness, but it was a righteousness which did belong to him. He
was made righteous by participation (not imputation) in the righteousness
of God through faith. For people who sin, their sin is reckoned as
unrighteous (or not reckoned as righteousness), in harmony with their actual
sin. For
those obedient, their obedience is reckoned as righteousness, in harmony
with their actual righteousness.
Righteousness is not inherent and we must be made righteous (Rom. 5:17-19)
in order to be justified. How is it produced? Christ's righteousness must
become our righteousness not by the method of imputation through faith,
but by the method of participation through faith. Participation in the death
and resurrection of Christ produces in our hearts actual righteousness,
which then becomes the immediate ground of our justification. For God
does not declare people righteous who are not actually, existentially righteous, in heart, word and deed.
Response from Christian Data Resources
Protestant View on Imputation
Thank you for your recent note concerning imputation. I'm sorry that I
have been somewhat slow in replying. Part of this has been due to a time
constraint, and part of it is due to the difficulty I find in preparing
a response to your note. I'm not sure that I can satisfy you with an answer, but I'll try.
I appreciate your exegesis of Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, and Genesis
15:6. However, I would have to say that I do not use these passages
to defend my stand on imputation. Rather, I think that Romans 5:15-19 is
the only definitive passage. Even after carefully considering the good
points you made, I believe that this passage (and perhaps this is the
only passage) tells us that Christ imputed His righteousness to us
(just as Adam imputed his sin to us).
Also, Romans 7:14-25 indicates to me that even Paul was not righteous in every word and deed.
Sorry if my view seems inadequate, but I do enjoy hearing yours.
Thanks,
Owen |
|