Baptist Paper On Catholicism

[Anna]

You're doing pretty diggity, doggone darn good there, Brother Adam. And for some reason, your words actually seem to sink in! Good job!

Pax Christi. <><

[Brother Adam]

CircleMaster,

I want to first apologize if I ever come off as too foreward, rude, bullheaded, or anything like that. I can get zealous sometimes, so I apologize in advance.

It's getting late so I'm going to take time to ponder what you have said and try to get back to you soon, have to get sleep to go to church tomorrow though. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you though.

thank you for your conversation.

Blessings, Bro. Adam

[Circle_Master]

it's all good. my first response was because dUSt said something to the affect that protestants all have to agree and if you don't then obviously you would have replied, so for his benefit i responded to the entire thing (which took incredibly long!). It is more fun arguing with protestants usually anyway, at least we don't have this weird attitude we are infallible truth but we can search Scriptures for what the truth is.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

we are infallible truth but we can search Scriptures for what the truth is.

I think your mistaking the 'we' portion of your statement. None of us here will ever, EVER, claim that we are infallible.

Your comments to Bro Adam about Catholics putting Tradition OVER Scripture are amazing, considering we have explained it to you time and time again.

Here is the simplest way to put it. You cannot use Sacred Scriptures without Sacred Tradition. They go hand in hand. you cannot use one without the other. One is not above the other, they are equal. Before the Bible was compiled as ONE Bible (Thanks to the Catholic Church) it was Oral Traditions and Teachings that was used as well as the limited Scriptures that were available to one Church.

does this make more sense for you? I cant say it any clearer than I did 900 other times to you. Neither is above the other, they both are equal and should be used together, not seperate.

Also your comments somewhere else about when we in here say "We put the Bible together" we mean the Catholic Church. Without US, you wouldnt have the Bible as we know it. Historically acurate, but you still fight it.

But, like someone else said here, you are a good person to debate with, you through some low punches sometimes but nothing 'Bruce-like', so you're ok in my book. God Bless you and keep searching, God will bring you home soon.

[Jake Huether]

Christ's sacrifice is outside of time? Are you saying He is still on the cross? I am 100% sure Christ died and was raised from the dead and is not being sacrificed today. The sacrifice was for all, but saying you must partake in that still denies that Christ covered all sins at that moment - just that he covers only sins in the past. All does not mean 'all up to this point' but since He is eternal I think you agree He covered all future sins as well.

Well, since no other Catholics have responded to this, I guess I'll take the first swing...

Christ's sacrifice is outside of time? Are you saying He is still on the cross

Historically, no. Spiritually, yes. Do you belive that your sins nailed Christ to the Cross? If yes, then you understand that Christ is "still" being nailed to the Cross. If no, then please explian how you "escaped" fault for Christs death.

Catholics understand that Christ died historically once and for all. He was on earth historically for 33 years. He resurrected once in history.

Our sins, however, are still being paid for. Our sins are still whipping Christ and setting a crown of thorns on His Holy head. Just as real as it was in history, my sins slam nails through the hands of Christ. And just as real as it was in history, the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass extends, Mystically, Christs death and resurrection to me to cover my sins. It is not Christ that is physically sacrificed anew in history, rather, it is I who am transported to the foot of the Cross.

I am 100% sure Christ died and was raised from the dead and is not being sacrificed today.

And I am 100% sure that Christ dies each and every time I sin. You must not think historically, because that is not the Teaching of the Church. The Sacrifice of the Mass is not a new historical event. The Mass is the same historical event, we are taken there. It is a Spiritual event, made Real.

The sacrifice was for all, but saying you must partake in that still denies that Christ covered all sins at that moment

And saying we must not partake in "that" still denies that Christ said, "Unless one eats of the flesh of the son of man and drinks his blood, he has no life in him... do this in memory of me."

Again, historically Christ died for all and covered all sins at that moment. But Spiritually, just as I continue to mock Christ with my sins, He continues to die and rise that I might have life.

All does not mean 'all up to this point' but since He is eternal I think you agree He covered all future sins as well.

Alas, we agree. But the "how" is where our agreement ends.

Historically, indeed, Christ died for all our sins (past present and future). But in order to make that historical even present for us "now", Christ left us the Mass. So that we are TRULY brought to the foot of that very same Cross.

[Jake Huether]

By the way, Bro. You are an amesome Christian. A true witness to ALL.

God bless you.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Jake, we were waiting for you to reply thats why

you did an excellent job dude. Thanks for taking that swing

[Brother Adam]

Hi Circlemaster,

Wanted to tell you that our conversation has inspired a new title for my book proposal, which went out yesterday afternoon, first to a group of people to edit and give their recommendations. It's also going to go out to several phatmassers in the next couple of days via email.

I'm back into a workweek and spent all weekend on the book proposal so I unfortunately don't have time to write anymore novels! I only get 2 hours of free time a day where I'm not working, cleaning or sleeping. (sad huh?)

The one thing I want to address though (as you can see Catholics usually address points MUCH better than I do considering I'm not Catholic and don't agree with everything they teach, though I try to understand it) is the works/faith relationship.

As a protestant it is difficult for me also to understand how they put all of these fundamentals of the faith together- grace, faith, works, justification, santification.

There seems to be as many ways to put those together as there are people. I believe what the catachism tries to teach is that baptism shows a great deal of faith as nothing the reciepient does earns that faith- it is totally the grace of God. And while "works" come after that faith, Jesus tells us in scripture that branches that do not produce fruits will be cut off from the tree and thrown into the fire. This is important because these branches are part of the tree.

Their sacraments are means of santifying grace, but they see santifying grace different then protestants do. When we go to communion- we make the action to go to communion, its up to our effort, I believe God does give us his favor when he sees us taking part in a command that he gave. God favors us in more ways than our initial salvation. I think this is where Catholics are coming from.

God graces them and favors them when they take part in what they believe are fundamentals of the Catholic faith- the sacraments. That doesn't mean that taking communion "saves" them as we think of being "saved". They don't go from being unbelievers to being believers in communion. They go from graced believers to more graced believers. that is how I can think of explaining it right now.

The other issue is that they don't believe in eternal assurance. If you don't either than its easier to explain their thoughts on confession and penance, but I'll wait for your response for that.

[Jake Huether]

Jake, we were waiting for you to reply thats why

you did an excellent job dude. Thanks for taking that swing

Why thankya.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Brother Adam.

I know your post was for Circle but allow me to just say a couple little things.

First off, there is no 'official' protestant teaching on justification and all of that. Even the original reformers had major disagreements, for example the early Lutherans held to 'faith alone' and the early Calvinists held to 'faith alone' but they meant very different things by that expression, the Lutherans accusing the Calvinists of being too close to Papism. The topic is a pretty nuanced one. So I wonder, what precise doctrines do you hold in this regard? Also some advice, the protestant theologies of grace and salvation are based on different fundamental concepts than the Catholic understanding. For protestants justification is primarily a juridical concept. This is why it is so rare to encounter a protestant who actually understands the Catholic position. In Catholicism the basic concept needed for understanding justification and the process of sanctification is Divine Sonship, whereby we become adopted children of God. If you want a dogmatic exposition on the Catholic teaching on justification I would direct you to the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. There is a whole section devoted to this topic in response to the protestant reformation. My favorite book for lay Catholics on the subject is "Catholic for a Reason" because it gives a clear exposition of justification and all of it with a good emphasis on the foundations of it which are this filial adoption I meantioned, this is important because too often protestants try to study Catholic soteriology and do so with the protestant juridical mentality and miss the point of Catholic teaching. This is R.C. Sproul's main problem in his latest book on justification. Also from a biblical point of view I am convinced that only the Catholic understanding really reconciles all of what Scripture says about it. It's the most scriptural and most beautiful theology that I know of.

Peace brother.

[Bruce S]

The other issue is that they don't believe in eternal assurance.

Which basically invalidates everything Paul tried to elaborate to Jews.

They substitute a works based salvation system for a grace based one.

Trent actually excommunicates you if you believe otherwise.

[Brother Adam]

Which basically invalidates everything Paul tried to elaborate to Jews.

They substitute a works based salvation system for a grace based one.

Trent actually excommunicates you if you believe otherwise.

Believing against eternal security does not automatically make a works based system for theology. I've never heard a priest say "alright congragents, this week you need to preform 54 good works and record them in order to retain your salvation". However, they do say "If you choose this week to sin so seriously and greviously by your own premeditated free will, if you choose to severe your relationship with God, we ask that you come back and return to God- to take action on your own part to ask for God's unmerited favor."

You see, this type of Grace didn't exist in the OT. You sinned against God, and there was a specific list of sacrifices that needed to be made to atone for your sins. Now God says, "that's it, this sacrifice system isn't working. My son is going to make the final sacrifice for all of you. He is going to sacrafice his life. And because of that all you need to do is confess your sin and partake in the ultimate sacrifice- the death of my Son." Our actions of going before God are not a "good works" based system of sacrifice to attain salvation, but indeed are a grace system.

On another note- I met a chinese pastor today (prot) who told us in tears that when his underground church meets on Sunday they have the Lord's supper every Sunday becuase they don't know if they will all have been murdered for their faith by the next time Sunday comes around. Shame on us for not having that attitude- that this could very well be the last time we are ever in church.

Edited January 26, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Laudate_Dominum]

Good point Brother Adam. I wonder what Bruce S's theological views are (assuming they are worked out in any sort of detail). Maybe we should start a Justification thread to discuss this?

[Brother Adam]

L_D, you asked what were my specific beliefs. Since I am fallible myself I simply say I believe strongly in the words of Romans 3:22-26 and Ephesians 2:8-9 on the issue.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Since I am fallible myself I simply say I believe strongly in the words of Romans 3:22-26 and Ephesians 2:8-9 on the issue.

Those are among the classic 'proof texts' used in the protestant tradition for their doctrines on justification. They are first misinterpreted in light of the protestant doctrines and then absolutized at the expense of the bigger picture of Scripture.

I have no quarrel with you my friend, I would rather be having this discussion with Bruce S. I think I will save this for a future Justification thread.

Peace be with you.

[Laudate_Dominum]

QUOTE: Brother Adam

"The other issue is that they don't believe in eternal assurance. "

QUOTE: Bruce S

Which basically invalidates everything Paul tried to elaborate to Jews.

They substitute a works based salvation system for a grace based one.

Trent actually excommunicates you if you believe otherwise.

Bruce,

Just so it's very clear, Catholic Soteriology is not a "works based system", it's the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Deliverer of our souls. Part of the problem is that protestant concepts and terminology resemble Catholic concepts and terminology but often have quite different meanings. I am willing to engage in an in depth dialogue with you on this matter. Martin Luther, the father of your tradition, fundamentally misinterpreted Paul in his favorite passages (mainly Romans 3). Protestant soteriology has been unbiblical ever since. Protestant doctrines on justification tend to be based upon one liners gleaned primarily from Paul, these passages are misinterpreted and then used as the basis of doctrine. Thus the tensions resulting between these doctrines and the words of the One Teacher Jesus Christ are ignored or poorly explained away. Also these false interpretations fail to harmonize with the totality of the Pauline corpus, the other Epistles of Scripture (especially James) and the words of the Holy Gospels. The Catholic doctrine (which I'm not convinced you understand) is the only one which truly harmonizes Sacred Scripture and is the most profound and reasonable, not to mention it is consistent with historical Christianity and is the only one that has not been condemned to the infamy of heresy by the Vicar of Jesus Christ. I can back up every one of these statements if you care to challenge me and would enjoy doing so.

Also Trent does not excommunicate those who believe contrary to a works based system. In fact the Church has condemned works based systems (such as Pelagianism).

I look forward to discussing the matters in more depth my brother in Jesus Christ.

Edited January 28, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum