Written by KD
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
A different view of faith?
I am just wondering if one major difference between Protestants and Catholics is their concept of faith or saving faith. The Catholics believe that faith has to be living as James states. Protestants so put the stress on faith alone that they tend to deny an active faith that works as being a necessary aspect of salvation. Both the Protestants and the Catholics believe that faith comes from grace. Both believe we must put our faith in Christ our savior for salvation. The difference seems to be that the Catholics believe faith is as Jesus defines it. It is not a faith that just calls Jesus Lord and does not follow him. It is a living active faith. Protestants seem to be able to separate faith from a faith that is working. This seems not only strange to me, but against the gospels, against James, against Paul's statements about walking in the Spirit, against Revelation ....in short against the whole Bible--including the Old Testament
Thursday, December 1, 2011
L'Abri on the New Catholicism
A very strongly reformed friend of mine recently lent me a lecture from L'Abri on the New Catholicism. In it, the lecturer contends that the Catholic church changed radically and fundamentally after Vatican II. It is now a liberal church, affording salvation outside of the church and even outside of an explicit knowledge of Christ. He asserts that the Church has bought into moral and theological relativity in order to usher in a dangerous period of ecumenicalism.
I shared this with mom, who then asked what I thought of it. Here was my response:
I shared this with mom, who then asked what I thought of it. Here was my response:
I think it’s a warning that there are enemy voices with Catholic microphones. There always have been, and there always will be.
He tries to make it sound as if this is a novel thing—as if the Church has never faced changes of this nature. In one sense, he’s right, but ultimately, I think he’s wrong. Look at any period in the Church’s history, and you’ll find her battling heresy at all levels of the Church’s hierarchy. No sooner had she sufficiently tamped down a heresy than a new one would spring up to replace it. There’s a reason the Bible calls this life a spiritual battle. Sometimes those battles are loud and public. Sometimes, they are more subdued. So yes, the Church is facing something new, but it is at the same time something old.
He mentioned the modernist movement at the beginning of last century and how it was ruthlessly crushed by the pope. Kudos to the pope for doing his job. But ruthless crushing is not the only way to fight such problems. Different cultural and environmental settings call for different disciplinary approaches.
Vatican II brought with it a great deal of uncertainty. Big changes create confusion. Confusion is fertile soil for deception. Thus, in the decades following Vatican II, liberal theologians stepped in to capitalize on a rare opportunity. This time, the pope wasn’t so ruthless in stamping out the heresies. Does that mean that something has changed and for once heresy has won? No.
Recall the Church near the time of the Reformation. She was far astray at some very high levels. (Our friend from L’Abri could have made his case much more strongly then than now...) At that time, as in many before and since, God steered her back on course. Trace her course through history, and you will not see a straight line but something mildly resembling a sine curve. When she drifts to the north, the wind of the Spirit blows her southward. When she drifts south, a warm southern breeze nudges her back on course.
The Church herself, the papacy, the catechisms, the dogmas, and the doctrines seem to be solid and unshaken. With the new mass translations, the recent focus on Sacred Scripture, and the upcoming focus on evangelization, I think we see that the Church is pushing firmly against theological liberalism, relativism, and heresy.
Now, if I’m wrong, and heresy has won, and the Church has turned to false liberal ideology, I will be a little canoe adrift on a great, black sea. What other church holds the Biblical view of the Eucharist? Where else can I find the Church of history? Where can I go to find brothers and sisters with a Biblical, historical, and Traditional view of relics, sacramental life, communion of the saints, the authority of Peter? Nowhere. I feel that I must say to the Catholic Church: “Where else can I go? You have the words of eternal life.”
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Conversion
I recently sent a Protestant friend one of Scott Hahn's lectures. She asked me what I thought, and here is my response:
As I see it, the Catholic church is similar to Christ in this respect: she and He both make claims about themselves which give you only one of two options. You're familiar with the whole lunatic, liar, or Lord argument. Well, a similar line of thought must be applied to the Catholic church, for she claims to be The Church, set forth by Christ, unerring in doctrine through out all ages, and the pillar and ground of the truth. Further, she claims Papal infallibility, the ability to forgive sins via the sacrament of Confession in which the priest speaks in persona Christi, the physical and spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist... to list only a few. These are bold claims! As I see it, one is forced to make an all-or-nothing assessment of their validity. She's who she claims to be, or She's something twisted and diabolical, for she claims to do what only God can do.
Christ didn't leave us with the option of seeing him as just a good teacher. Neither does the Catholic Church leave us with the option of seeing her as just one slightly flawed church out of many.
Regarding conversion, I'm OK with the use of that word. They don't just use that word for people coming into the church, but also for people who are moving and growing within the church. Conversion can simply be defined as a change from one state or condition to another. To Catholics, all of life is one big conversion, consisting of many little ones. So while your entrance to the church is a rather large conversion, it is only one of many. For instance, when you say confession and do penance, you are (hopefully) being converted into a deeper state of grace.
Anyway, I hope I don't come across as strident, dogmatic or domineering. I'm pretty excited about all of this Catholic stuff, but I worry that my enthusiasm might be misunderstood at times. If I were to give a summary of my current view, it's that the core doctrines of the Reformation "sola fide" and "sola scriptura" are both false. That's a pretty strong statement, but I absolutely believe it. And as for the Catholic Church, it's taken a while, but I think I'm as far as my reason can stretch, and it's time for me to step out in faith. I think She is who She claims to be.
(And what a surprising and beautiful Bride she is!)
Follow up to Contraception.
In "Rome Sweet Home", Scott Hahn lays down a clear case for the Catholic position on contraception. Marriage is a sacrament. It's also a covenant. All covenants involve an exchange of people. They all come with renewal ceremonies. In marriage, this ceremony is sex. To contracept is analogous to taking the host, and then spitting out the wafer...
He builds the case more plainly than I can do in a paragraph, but suffice it to say the case is satisfactorily closed.
He builds the case more plainly than I can do in a paragraph, but suffice it to say the case is satisfactorily closed.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Humanae Vitae
I recently read Humanae Vitae, and I have to say I'm unconvinced. This puts me in a strange predicament. I have reached the point where I view the Church as God's authority on earth, as the authoritative interpreter of Holy Scripture, and as the pillar and ground of the truth. But this doesn't mean my mind has ceased to work.
Humanae Vitae claims that to willfully block the procreative act is contrary to natural law and is thus not permitted. However, in order to avoid pregnancy, it is perfectly fine for a couple to abstain from sex except in periods of natural female infertility. As far as I can tell, the logic seems to run like this: God created man and female for procreative purposes. The sex act is the means by which that procreation naturally occurs. To introduce something unnatural to this process for contraceptive purposes is to run contrary to the way God made things.
But I don't buy this logic. One may easily find numerous examples of when we can and should interfere with "the natural order of things". For example, if a river keeps flooding a town, it is perfectly reasonable that that town should divert the river into pools and reservoirs. Farmers are constantly fighting against the natural order of things in order to prevent arable land from reverting back to the "natural" tangle of meadows and forests. In fact, the overwhelming pattern of human existence is to interfere in the natural (and fallen!) order of things. Indeed, this is probably what it means to steward the earth.
It seems to me that man should use his mental facilities to create a more verdant, healthy, and happy world. This will necessarily involve working against the "natural disorder" and towards a more cultivated order.
I suppose, one must ask if there is a philosophy which must guide man in this quest. According to the Encyclical, to take advantage of a woman's natural cycles is to "use a faculty provided them by nature." To use a man-made contraceptive is to "obstruct the natural development of the generative process."
If we were to use this philosophy in all of our actions, we would have a very different world, indeed. By this logic, one could never, for instance, build a dam, for to do so would be to obstruct the natural development of the river. If one ponders this for a moment, one easily thinks of numerous counter-examples.
I'd also like to address a tangential point, namely some of the predictions made by the Encyclical. It says that in a world where contraceptive methods are easily accessible and accepted, men "may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires..." This is not a problem brought about by contraceptives, but rather by the fall. Can there be any question that men have always, throughout all of time, objectified and mistreated women? The Old Testament is filled with such behavior. Contraceptives neither encourage nor discourage this.
Now, I can say this: that if we were to follow the philosophy set forth in Humanae Vitae, I do think we'd have a much better world. In fact, we'd have a world in which human dwellings would have a very small ecological footprint. We'd have a world in which man never radically changed nature, but rather guided and guarded it. No big, unnatural roadways, factories, dams... No massive industrial farms raping the land and keeping animals stacked atop one another in inhumane conditions... We'd look much less like Americans and much more like Native Americans. Maybe that's not such a bad thing. But I don't think that's what the Catholic Church had in mind when it penned Humanae Vitae.
Humanae Vitae claims that to willfully block the procreative act is contrary to natural law and is thus not permitted. However, in order to avoid pregnancy, it is perfectly fine for a couple to abstain from sex except in periods of natural female infertility. As far as I can tell, the logic seems to run like this: God created man and female for procreative purposes. The sex act is the means by which that procreation naturally occurs. To introduce something unnatural to this process for contraceptive purposes is to run contrary to the way God made things.
But I don't buy this logic. One may easily find numerous examples of when we can and should interfere with "the natural order of things". For example, if a river keeps flooding a town, it is perfectly reasonable that that town should divert the river into pools and reservoirs. Farmers are constantly fighting against the natural order of things in order to prevent arable land from reverting back to the "natural" tangle of meadows and forests. In fact, the overwhelming pattern of human existence is to interfere in the natural (and fallen!) order of things. Indeed, this is probably what it means to steward the earth.
It seems to me that man should use his mental facilities to create a more verdant, healthy, and happy world. This will necessarily involve working against the "natural disorder" and towards a more cultivated order.
I suppose, one must ask if there is a philosophy which must guide man in this quest. According to the Encyclical, to take advantage of a woman's natural cycles is to "use a faculty provided them by nature." To use a man-made contraceptive is to "obstruct the natural development of the generative process."
If we were to use this philosophy in all of our actions, we would have a very different world, indeed. By this logic, one could never, for instance, build a dam, for to do so would be to obstruct the natural development of the river. If one ponders this for a moment, one easily thinks of numerous counter-examples.
I'd also like to address a tangential point, namely some of the predictions made by the Encyclical. It says that in a world where contraceptive methods are easily accessible and accepted, men "may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires..." This is not a problem brought about by contraceptives, but rather by the fall. Can there be any question that men have always, throughout all of time, objectified and mistreated women? The Old Testament is filled with such behavior. Contraceptives neither encourage nor discourage this.
Now, I can say this: that if we were to follow the philosophy set forth in Humanae Vitae, I do think we'd have a much better world. In fact, we'd have a world in which human dwellings would have a very small ecological footprint. We'd have a world in which man never radically changed nature, but rather guided and guarded it. No big, unnatural roadways, factories, dams... No massive industrial farms raping the land and keeping animals stacked atop one another in inhumane conditions... We'd look much less like Americans and much more like Native Americans. Maybe that's not such a bad thing. But I don't think that's what the Catholic Church had in mind when it penned Humanae Vitae.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Merits
I have a friend who is of the Seventh Day Adventist persuasion. He and I were discussing the Catholic doctrine of the merits of the saints.
After poking around a bit, and talking to a priest today, this seems to be the essence of the doctrine: we are all a part of the communion of the saints. We are all members of the body of Christ. In a sense, if one of us is joined with a prostitute, we all are affected. And likewise, if one of us is holy, we all are affected. In a body, when the mouth consumes good food, the entire body is nourished. When it consumes poison, the entire body is injured. He used the blood-stream as his example, stating that the merits of the saints flow to us today, that this spiritual body spans all of time. There is a real, spiritual transfer of health going on: the body supporting and sustaining itself through the unity and working of the Holy Spirit.
It's a pretty difficult pill for this protestant to swallow, though I can see how it might have developed from certain Biblical stories. For instance, God regularly did things like spare Israel "because of His servant David" who had been dead for generations. You have the notion of the prayers of the righteous availing much, which isn't exactly the same, but is in the general vicinity.
Anyway, I'm definitely going to have to search the NT and read the early fathers on this one...
After poking around a bit, and talking to a priest today, this seems to be the essence of the doctrine: we are all a part of the communion of the saints. We are all members of the body of Christ. In a sense, if one of us is joined with a prostitute, we all are affected. And likewise, if one of us is holy, we all are affected. In a body, when the mouth consumes good food, the entire body is nourished. When it consumes poison, the entire body is injured. He used the blood-stream as his example, stating that the merits of the saints flow to us today, that this spiritual body spans all of time. There is a real, spiritual transfer of health going on: the body supporting and sustaining itself through the unity and working of the Holy Spirit.
It's a pretty difficult pill for this protestant to swallow, though I can see how it might have developed from certain Biblical stories. For instance, God regularly did things like spare Israel "because of His servant David" who had been dead for generations. You have the notion of the prayers of the righteous availing much, which isn't exactly the same, but is in the general vicinity.
Anyway, I'm definitely going to have to search the NT and read the early fathers on this one...
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Cults
In a recent conversation, I was explaining how I started down this conversion process. There were three early seeds.
The first was a visit I made to Mepkin Abbey over a year ago. While sitting in the little chapel, I observed a stream of people entering in. It was very easy to distinguish between the Protestants and the Catholics. The latter seemed much more reverent, by their posture, actions, and demeanor.
Secondly, a comment that my dad made really stuck with me. He stated: "The posture of fundamentalism is this: [a pointed finger], whereas the Anglo-Catholic is this: [open arms]". This is generally true. The difference is not a shallow one. The various postures are physical manifestations of very core differences in the two world views.
Finally, there were two events which, like a one-two punch sent me reeling towards the Church. The first was a visit from some Jehovah's witnesses. They sat down with me for a good, lengthy discussion. Of course, I thought I won the debate, and I went on my way without thinking too much of it. A couple of months later, I ran into a guy in my apartment complex who had moved into town to start a Bible study. I thought that was a strange reason to move into a town and was immediately intrigued. Besides, I was looking to get into a local fellowship group. Well, it turned out the study was the outcropping of a cult group... And that's when something clicked in my mind. Both the Jehovah's witnesses and this cult claimed to be Bible-believing Christian organizations. Both claimed to have the Holy Spirit. The cult even spoke in tongues!
Who was I to say that their interpretation of the Scriptures was incorrect? What I told myself was this: "Well, their interpretation is pretty distant from that of the majority of Christendom... Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans..." But then I realized I wasn't appealing to Scripture itself, as that hadn't proved sufficient in our debates. I was appealing to the Body of Christ, and the traditional beliefs held by it. But if this was my appeal, then I was in a very sticky situation, for the same argument could be made by Catholics against my Protestant point of view...
And that was pretty much that.
The first was a visit I made to Mepkin Abbey over a year ago. While sitting in the little chapel, I observed a stream of people entering in. It was very easy to distinguish between the Protestants and the Catholics. The latter seemed much more reverent, by their posture, actions, and demeanor.
Secondly, a comment that my dad made really stuck with me. He stated: "The posture of fundamentalism is this: [a pointed finger], whereas the Anglo-Catholic is this: [open arms]". This is generally true. The difference is not a shallow one. The various postures are physical manifestations of very core differences in the two world views.
Finally, there were two events which, like a one-two punch sent me reeling towards the Church. The first was a visit from some Jehovah's witnesses. They sat down with me for a good, lengthy discussion. Of course, I thought I won the debate, and I went on my way without thinking too much of it. A couple of months later, I ran into a guy in my apartment complex who had moved into town to start a Bible study. I thought that was a strange reason to move into a town and was immediately intrigued. Besides, I was looking to get into a local fellowship group. Well, it turned out the study was the outcropping of a cult group... And that's when something clicked in my mind. Both the Jehovah's witnesses and this cult claimed to be Bible-believing Christian organizations. Both claimed to have the Holy Spirit. The cult even spoke in tongues!
Who was I to say that their interpretation of the Scriptures was incorrect? What I told myself was this: "Well, their interpretation is pretty distant from that of the majority of Christendom... Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans..." But then I realized I wasn't appealing to Scripture itself, as that hadn't proved sufficient in our debates. I was appealing to the Body of Christ, and the traditional beliefs held by it. But if this was my appeal, then I was in a very sticky situation, for the same argument could be made by Catholics against my Protestant point of view...
And that was pretty much that.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Faith alone?
Sungenis in his book, Not by Faith Alone states on page 309
"...while the Protestant system may seem easy and plausible, it often misses the simple language of Scripture. Rather than taking each verse as it stands and allowing the differing 'face-value' facts of Scripture to create as many theological categories as necessary to explain its compete message, the Protestant hermeneutic invariable elevates 'faith alone', and its counterpart 'imputed righteousness', as all-encompassing theological categories into which the rest of the Scripture's language must fit. If the 'face value' information that a passage provides does not conform to the faith alone theory the Protestant hermeneutic nevertheless imposes it on the text. The theological category of faith alone becomes the overriding criterion...of biblical hermeneutics --by which to judge or interpret any other Scripture."
Through the past few months I have seen the above statement to be true. Roman Catholicism seems more balanced in taking all of Scripture into account. Some examples---
The only time faith alone is used in the Bible is in James 2: 24 "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" . James tells us what saving faith is. What kind of faith will save a person? James 2:14 "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? " 17 Even so faith , if it has no works, is dead, being by itself."
James, therefore makes it clear that a faith that saves has to have works. It is a living faith, an active faith, a working faith that is a true faith. It all comes from grace---it is a full faith.
What did Jesus tell the disciples to do?
Matt 20:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.... " Here we see the need of baptism and of obedience (observing the commands of Jesus) to be a disciple.
Luke 24:47 "and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name...
When Peter preached in Acts 2 the response to his message was, "Brethren what shall we do?"
Peter did not say have faith alone. He said in 2:38 "Repent, and let each of you be baptized 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 for you and your children, and for all who are far off , as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." Here we see both repentance and baptism as commanded.
What did Peter say after preaching in Acts 3?
19. "Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord......26 "For you first, God raised up His Servant, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways." Here again we see the need of true repentance--turning from ones wicked ways.
Acts 5: 31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him". Here again we see repentance and obedience.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." Belief and Baptism are the response. The same thing happens when Philip preaches to the Ethiopian--he is baptized.
Acts 10: 43 Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name every one who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins" Here we see the necessity of believing in Him (this would includes Lord and Savior--in who he is verse 43 -Judge of the living and the dead ).
Acts 11:18 "Repentance that leads to life"
Acts 15:11 ..saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.."
Acts 18: 8 ...believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. 27 ...who had believed through grace.
Acts 20:21 preached "...repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ".
Acts 22:16 "...Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."
Acts 26: 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me."
20:...that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance."
So again and again we see the need for a repentance (which is a turning away from sin to God which results in deeds), faith, baptism. These are all just mainly in Acts. Here is one in 1 Peter 3: 21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you---not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Here is how the Council of Trent defines the causes of justification (from a quote I found on line about it):
Perhaps the most important passage in the decree is the seventh chapter listing the “five causes of justification.” They are as follows:
"1.the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting
2.the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance
3.the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father
4.the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified
5.lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.
Note that the meritorious cause is the suffering and death of Christ. Human being are not the source of the justifying merit. Note also that the sacraments are “instrumental”. The sacraments are the “instruments” in the hand of Christ.
The formal cause is the “justice of God” not our own justice. Nevertheless, we receive His “justice within us, each one according to his own measure.” "
"...while the Protestant system may seem easy and plausible, it often misses the simple language of Scripture. Rather than taking each verse as it stands and allowing the differing 'face-value' facts of Scripture to create as many theological categories as necessary to explain its compete message, the Protestant hermeneutic invariable elevates 'faith alone', and its counterpart 'imputed righteousness', as all-encompassing theological categories into which the rest of the Scripture's language must fit. If the 'face value' information that a passage provides does not conform to the faith alone theory the Protestant hermeneutic nevertheless imposes it on the text. The theological category of faith alone becomes the overriding criterion...of biblical hermeneutics --by which to judge or interpret any other Scripture."
Through the past few months I have seen the above statement to be true. Roman Catholicism seems more balanced in taking all of Scripture into account. Some examples---
The only time faith alone is used in the Bible is in James 2: 24 "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" . James tells us what saving faith is. What kind of faith will save a person? James 2:14 "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? " 17 Even so faith , if it has no works, is dead, being by itself."
James, therefore makes it clear that a faith that saves has to have works. It is a living faith, an active faith, a working faith that is a true faith. It all comes from grace---it is a full faith.
What did Jesus tell the disciples to do?
Matt 20:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.... " Here we see the need of baptism and of obedience (observing the commands of Jesus) to be a disciple.
Luke 24:47 "and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name...
When Peter preached in Acts 2 the response to his message was, "Brethren what shall we do?"
Peter did not say have faith alone. He said in 2:38 "Repent, and let each of you be baptized 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 for you and your children, and for all who are far off , as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." Here we see both repentance and baptism as commanded.
What did Peter say after preaching in Acts 3?
19. "Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord......26 "For you first, God raised up His Servant, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways." Here again we see the need of true repentance--turning from ones wicked ways.
Acts 5: 31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him". Here again we see repentance and obedience.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." Belief and Baptism are the response. The same thing happens when Philip preaches to the Ethiopian--he is baptized.
Acts 10: 43 Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name every one who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins" Here we see the necessity of believing in Him (this would includes Lord and Savior--in who he is verse 43 -Judge of the living and the dead ).
Acts 11:18 "Repentance that leads to life"
Acts 15:11 ..saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.."
Acts 18: 8 ...believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. 27 ...who had believed through grace.
Acts 20:21 preached "...repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ".
Acts 22:16 "...Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."
Acts 26: 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me."
20:...that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance."
So again and again we see the need for a repentance (which is a turning away from sin to God which results in deeds), faith, baptism. These are all just mainly in Acts. Here is one in 1 Peter 3: 21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you---not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Here is how the Council of Trent defines the causes of justification (from a quote I found on line about it):
Perhaps the most important passage in the decree is the seventh chapter listing the “five causes of justification.” They are as follows:
"1.the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting
2.the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance
3.the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father
4.the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified
5.lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.
Note that the meritorious cause is the suffering and death of Christ. Human being are not the source of the justifying merit. Note also that the sacraments are “instrumental”. The sacraments are the “instruments” in the hand of Christ.
The formal cause is the “justice of God” not our own justice. Nevertheless, we receive His “justice within us, each one according to his own measure.” "
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Scripture is Tradition
Another clip from an email with my sister:
"The Bible calls the Church (not Scripture) the "pillar and ground of the truth". (http://bible.cc/1_timothy/3-15.htm) This is one of a handful of passages which seems to portray the Church as an institution which would faithfully carry the truth down through the ages unchanged in the face of outside pressure. Historically, it is interesting to see how this has played out.
But you can even look at the current state of things and see it: in a time when so many mainline denominations are caving on so many issues, we find that Catholicism has held firm. No female priests, homosexuality is a sin, abortion is murder, life is sacred (so contraception is out), etc. These are incredibly unpopular beliefs, and the Catholic church is the only non-modern church which hasn't budged on any of these. Sure, the PCA holds these truths, too, but they are 40 years old and came about as a protest against heretical changes in mainline Presbyterianism.
In Protestantism, this is a pattern: a mainline denomination strays into theological error, and a small sect breaks away, preserving the original purity of the doctrines held by the original denomination. Later, this sect grows and eventually strays, and another sect breaks away from it for the same reasons. Etc, etc.
What is interesting about Catholicism is that the opposite pattern holds there. Heresies form, but rather than the "true church" breaking away and forming a new, smaller, fledgling denomination which maintains true doctrine, it is the heretical sect which breaks away and languishes as schismatics while the Church herself continues in doctrinal soundness.
Regarding the Church fathers, both sides pick and choose what they believe, but Protestants have to be far more selective than Catholics, for none of the fathers much resemble modern day Protestants. They resemble early Catholics, which is what they were. For example, Augustine is one of the Protestant favorites, and yet I think he documented a lineage of popes right back to St. Peter, and he seems to have viewed them as authoritative in some sense.
When you consider that the earliest proper canon of Scripture wasn't official until roughly 360 or so, it becomes clear that Scripture is tradition (or more properly, Scripture is a subset of tradition). The Church was without an official canon for longer than America has been a nation. It was the Church fathers, or more specifically, the Holy Spirit working through the Church, who faithfully handed down this tradition. By 360, the Church Fathers were starting to look much more like Catholics than anything else. What we Protestants do is accept the Scriptures which they handed to us (except the deuterocanonical books), reject the Scriptures which they rejected, and also reject the men themselves, by and large. I think it is this last bit where we've gone wrong."
"The Bible calls the Church (not Scripture) the "pillar and ground of the truth". (http://bible.cc/1_timothy/3-15.htm) This is one of a handful of passages which seems to portray the Church as an institution which would faithfully carry the truth down through the ages unchanged in the face of outside pressure. Historically, it is interesting to see how this has played out.
But you can even look at the current state of things and see it: in a time when so many mainline denominations are caving on so many issues, we find that Catholicism has held firm. No female priests, homosexuality is a sin, abortion is murder, life is sacred (so contraception is out), etc. These are incredibly unpopular beliefs, and the Catholic church is the only non-modern church which hasn't budged on any of these. Sure, the PCA holds these truths, too, but they are 40 years old and came about as a protest against heretical changes in mainline Presbyterianism.
In Protestantism, this is a pattern: a mainline denomination strays into theological error, and a small sect breaks away, preserving the original purity of the doctrines held by the original denomination. Later, this sect grows and eventually strays, and another sect breaks away from it for the same reasons. Etc, etc.
What is interesting about Catholicism is that the opposite pattern holds there. Heresies form, but rather than the "true church" breaking away and forming a new, smaller, fledgling denomination which maintains true doctrine, it is the heretical sect which breaks away and languishes as schismatics while the Church herself continues in doctrinal soundness.
Regarding the Church fathers, both sides pick and choose what they believe, but Protestants have to be far more selective than Catholics, for none of the fathers much resemble modern day Protestants. They resemble early Catholics, which is what they were. For example, Augustine is one of the Protestant favorites, and yet I think he documented a lineage of popes right back to St. Peter, and he seems to have viewed them as authoritative in some sense.
When you consider that the earliest proper canon of Scripture wasn't official until roughly 360 or so, it becomes clear that Scripture is tradition (or more properly, Scripture is a subset of tradition). The Church was without an official canon for longer than America has been a nation. It was the Church fathers, or more specifically, the Holy Spirit working through the Church, who faithfully handed down this tradition. By 360, the Church Fathers were starting to look much more like Catholics than anything else. What we Protestants do is accept the Scriptures which they handed to us (except the deuterocanonical books), reject the Scriptures which they rejected, and also reject the men themselves, by and large. I think it is this last bit where we've gone wrong."
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The Pillar and Ground
This is from a recent email to my sister, but I thought it would make a good post for later rumination:
"I think I do get the whole common grace concept. The entire doctrine [of man's depravity, total vs utter] does have plenty of choice verses on either side, which is something which seems to be true of just about any doctrine. It has become very clear to me that we approach the Scripture through a prism, and proceed to get out of it what we set forth to get.
This realization (that the Bible can be taken to say a great many different things) has impressed me of late. There are 30,000+ denominations in the world, all claiming to be Bible-based and Spirit-led. Many of these denominations take diametrically opposed views of various doctrines. Something's wrong with this picture. I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, but when put into the hands of fallible men, it seems to be taken a million different ways. How do we rightly interpret and read it?
Surely, it is through prayer and careful study. But I think it would be unwise to neglect the "pillar and ground of the truth". At which point, you've got to select one of 30,000+ pillars and say: "OK, I guess I'll lean on that one!" But what makes you sure that your pillar is "THE pillar and ground of the truth", as opposed to one of the other 29,999 pillars? (For example, it seems exceedingly unlikely that a pillar which formed roughly 40 years ago, such as the PCA is "the pillar" Christ spoke of.) You could take the pillar to mean the mystical body of the church, composed of all true believers across all denominations and all time. And I think you'd be much closer to the mark. I think "the pillar" must encompass this. But I think it must also be true to the traditions handed down from the Apostles, as suggested by St. Paul in Thessalonians when he asked that we be faithful to the traditions he handed down to us, both written and verbal.
It seems to me that to fail to turn to the pillar that Christ set up as a safeguard of the truth is to turn to a theology of individual subjectivity."
...
Now I wonder, can I philosophically get away with saying: "One man's reason and subjective thoughts are insufficient to properly interpret scripture, but are sufficient to distinguish the proper interpreter of scripture (e.g. the Catholic Church)?" Hmm... Don't know. But it's late and time for bed.
"I think I do get the whole common grace concept. The entire doctrine [of man's depravity, total vs utter] does have plenty of choice verses on either side, which is something which seems to be true of just about any doctrine. It has become very clear to me that we approach the Scripture through a prism, and proceed to get out of it what we set forth to get.
This realization (that the Bible can be taken to say a great many different things) has impressed me of late. There are 30,000+ denominations in the world, all claiming to be Bible-based and Spirit-led. Many of these denominations take diametrically opposed views of various doctrines. Something's wrong with this picture. I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, but when put into the hands of fallible men, it seems to be taken a million different ways. How do we rightly interpret and read it?
Surely, it is through prayer and careful study. But I think it would be unwise to neglect the "pillar and ground of the truth". At which point, you've got to select one of 30,000+ pillars and say: "OK, I guess I'll lean on that one!" But what makes you sure that your pillar is "THE pillar and ground of the truth", as opposed to one of the other 29,999 pillars? (For example, it seems exceedingly unlikely that a pillar which formed roughly 40 years ago, such as the PCA is "the pillar" Christ spoke of.) You could take the pillar to mean the mystical body of the church, composed of all true believers across all denominations and all time. And I think you'd be much closer to the mark. I think "the pillar" must encompass this. But I think it must also be true to the traditions handed down from the Apostles, as suggested by St. Paul in Thessalonians when he asked that we be faithful to the traditions he handed down to us, both written and verbal.
It seems to me that to fail to turn to the pillar that Christ set up as a safeguard of the truth is to turn to a theology of individual subjectivity."
...
Now I wonder, can I philosophically get away with saying: "One man's reason and subjective thoughts are insufficient to properly interpret scripture, but are sufficient to distinguish the proper interpreter of scripture (e.g. the Catholic Church)?" Hmm... Don't know. But it's late and time for bed.
What this blog is about.
I've been discussing Catholicism for several months, now (I'm currently Protestant), and decided it was about time for me to have a place to stick all of my thoughts. The general idea is that I will be able to see a progression of thought over time. I also tend to think more systematically and clearly when I write than when I simply stare at my navel or debate with a friend. So, the purpose of this blog is entirely personal, but if someone stumbles upon this and gets something out of it, all the better!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)