Romans 5-8 And Ontology

[Brother Adam]

Hi, I've been involved in a debate with a Calvinist for some time now and I need to get a few theological ideas straight in my own head before drafting my next thought. When we are justified (born again) we are changed ontologically. The calvinist assertion in this case is that by this ontological change and new mark on the Christians soul it does not make sense that a person with a "changed will" in his estimation can go from being "saved to not being saved". My understanding is that the Catholic understanding is that one can remain ontologically marked as a Christian, yet leave the faith. I'm just hoping someone with more experience in Calvinism can help me flesh out what it is I am debating and how to properly respond.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1247763' date='Apr 17 2007, 10:42 PM']Hi, I've been involved in a debate with a Calvinist for some time now and I need to get a few theological ideas straight in my own head before drafting my next thought. When we are justified (born again) we are changed ontologically. The calvinist assertion in this case is that by this ontological change and new mark on the Christians soul it does not make sense that a person with a "changed will" in his estimation can go from being "saved to not being saved". My understanding is that the Catholic understanding is that one can remain ontologically marked as a Christian, yet leave the faith. I'm just hoping someone with more experience in Calvinism can help me flesh out what it is I am debating and how to properly respond.[/quote]

kind of confusing, is he defending it or denouncing it? heh. i think the problem lies in the catholic vs. protestant view of baptism vs. salvation. afaik, they think you only need to be reborn once, which saves you once, which guarantees you heaven. there is that permanent, ontological change. the problem i see is that it gives you no incentive to be good. there is no fear of being bad. if you're really bad, then they say, "oh well you weren't really saved to begin with". so how do you know for sure? you don't. it just makes people feel better that they are guaranteed.

with us, Christ "saved" us by opening the gates of heaven. when we're baptized we receive this ontological change. we are now *able* to enter heaven, but we are not guaranteed it. our life consists of working out our salvation. we will be judged at the gate. theirs has no judge, it's a one way guaranteed happy pass.

pitiful response i know but hope it helps somehow.

[Brother Adam]

No, this is good: "we are now *able* to enter heaven". This is a concept that I'm sure has been written about before, I just need to find the technical terms and who has written about it. For Catholics then - rebirth = new creation which gives us the hope of heaven. For Calvinists - rebirth = new birth which guarantee's heaven. In both cases we both believe an ontological change takes place in the soul, but for Catholics this ontological change is not formally sufficient for eternal life IF one chooses to commit mortal sin. For Calvinists, mortal sin seems to be technically *possible* but the true Christian cannot commit mortal sin (Irresistible grace?).

[N/A Gone]

My calvinism is too polemic to help here bro. Sorry.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1247923' date='Apr 18 2007, 08:32 AM']For Calvinists, mortal sin seems to be technically *possible* but the true Christian cannot commit mortal sin (Irresistible grace?).[/quote]

so every "saved" person will never commit a mortal sin for the rest of their life, and if they do, they were never truly "saved"? what a crock.

btw i forget if the ontological change for us is also in confirmation. i'm pretty sure i've heard the term used for holy orders.

[kateri05]

b, c and HO all accomplish an ontological change (ie all leave indelible marks). baptism's is ordered to salvation while confirmation and HO's marks are ordered toward service of the Church, albeit HO in a more different way, ordered to be en persona Christi.


adam, i would love to read your side after you're done putting it together!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1247763' date='Apr 18 2007, 01:42 AM']Hi, I've been involved in a debate with a Calvinist for some time now and I need to get a few theological ideas straight in my own head before drafting my next thought. When we are justified (born again) we are changed ontologically. The calvinist assertion in this case is that by this ontological change and new mark on the Christians soul it does not make sense that a person with a "changed will" in his estimation can go from being "saved to not being saved". My understanding is that the Catholic understanding is that one can remain ontologically marked as a Christian, yet leave the faith. I'm just hoping someone with more experience in Calvinism can help me flesh out what it is I am debating and how to properly respond.[/quote]
Send it off to Mark Shea or Jimmy Akins blogs

[Brother Adam]

I know you guys don't get to see the wider context of this, but I need your help. Please correct me anywhere that I am not speaking from the will of the Church, or anything that sounds inflamed. I know there are portions that can be toned down. I haven't even gotten as far as Romans 5 yet. This is all in response to a previous email.

Dear [ ],

Thank you for your past few emails. I am writing this “forward” after I finished everything below. I had planned to cover most of what you mentioned, but I’m already up on 4 pages of material, and to go on would just not be prudent, it serves as enough as it is.

--

“The Scriptural exhortation to deny ourselves and the word “cooperation” do not belong together”

Unless you intend to argue that man has no freedom in regards to his own will, then it is the case that the Christian can choose to “deny himself and take up his cross and follow me [Christ]” or choose not to. The ontological change in man when he is made a new creation does not destroy his capacity to either follow Christ or choose to sin after his salvation. Of course when we deny our fleshly desires we are following the promptings of the Holy Spirit to follow after Christ and not after our own wills. Even Paul talks about doing “what he does not want to do”. Moving away from our old sinful habits towards deeper union with Christ is part of a process called sanctification, one which lasts a life time.

--

“You are going to have to clarify what you mean when you talk about “grace””

The word grace means “the free and undeserved gift that God gives us to respond to our vocation and become his adopted children”. There are three types of grace – sanctifying, actual, and sacramental.

While I am no longer a Lutheran, and therefore would never assume to speak for a Lutheran, Luther himself does state in his writings that the Christian is only saved because God does not see the Christian, but only sees Christ. For Luther the sinner is not interiorly justified, but only legally declared a Christian because God cannot “see” the sinner” but only can see Christ who is “in front of the sinner”. Luther misses the significance of becoming a new creation in Christ because of his own personal struggle with sin.

--

Christ became a propitiatory sacrifice in order to appease the wrath of God against sin. In this way he opens the floodgates of grace and makes it possible for every man to attain salvation. 2 Cor 5:21 “God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God”. You are reading more into my words than what is there because you are trying your best to make the Catholic faith into what it is not – a system of works in which we obtain salvation by pleasing God by those works. As we are new creations in Christ and adopted sons of God we cannot go about sinning all the more – we are called as Christians to live lives worthy of the gift that has been given to us. We must “walk in newness of life” and not in our flesh. I think I have spoken enough though on justification and sanctification, on what was won through the cross and the continued process of overcoming concupiscence. Let’s put it in a simple way that we both can agree on though – If I know I have a gambling problem I cannot simply say “Oh, Jesus already saved me, so I can just keep gambling, it doesn’t matter.” Of course it matters, to say that is to hold Christ to contempt. My salvation didn’t instantly cure me of my disordered desire to gamble, but through the grace of God through prayer and perseverance I can overcome that gambling problem.

--

“Not must as in an ultimatum, but definitely and progressively “will””

I believe this is the Calvinist principle of “perseverance of the saints” or the “P” of “TULIP”. This is of course caught up at the same time with the doctrines of predestination (which Catholics agree with so long as one does not declare “double-predestination”) and justification. In our study on Romans 5-8 we will talk more about the word “will” that you use here and why it is unbiblical to state that someone who has been initially “saved”, that is “adopted as a son of God” is not absolutely guaranteed that they will choose to remain in the grace of God. This is a highly complex topic though expanding over many doctrines, and I must wait until our Romans study to delve into it more or I could be here writing all night.

--

“You focus on acts, whereas my focus is on the nature of the one acting”

My focus isn’t on “acts” or “fruits”, but it is an area that you are constantly neglecting in your theology. Throughout the whole of scripture from Adam and Abraham, to Jesus and Mary, the act of faith takes an important place.

--

I have sufficiently explained the parable of the Prodigal Son. Scripture does of course state that his inheritance was completely squandered. He had nothing left, and while he remained his fathers “son”, he had lost what he had originally gained as a son through his own choice and his own sin.

--

Most of the rest of what you say has already been addressed. While the indelible mark of sonship can never be removed the Gospels with the rest of the writings of the NT warn repeatedly against apostasy and all sin that is “mortal” – which means of course this remains a possibility for the Christian who is still while on earth “running the race”.

“How can we lose something that is eternal?”

If you wan to define “eternal life” in the sense in which you are trying to define it, then we would also have to always have eternal life, as your definition of eternal life here would be that which neither has a beginning or an end but exists always.

--

“I’m trying to get you to question Catholic teaching”

Remember, I’ve already questioned Catholic teaching and put it to the test. I’m not convinced you have though because of your refusal to even read the Catechism, which does a much finer job than I can of explaining the Catholic faith. As I mentioned in an earlier email I spent many years as an ardent anti-Catholic. Of course, I’m simply trying to get you to take a look at 2,000 years of Christian history beyond the scope of your own personal interpretation of scripture (which is not in any way guaranteed by the Holy Spirit against error or heresy).

The question of authority is a very serious one. Consider this example – If we look at Reformation theology there are four main teachings on the Lord’s Supper. There is the Catholic view (transubstantiation), the Lutheran view (consubstantiation), the Calvinist view (Spiritual presence), and the Zwinglian view (ritualistic remembrance). Four very different views, all of them an interpretation of scripture. Not all four views can be right. At least three of the four views are formed by the will of the men who defined them at best, or are influenced by Satan at worst, as the views which are wrong do violence to scripture. Scripture requires an authoritative interpreter. Since scripture needs interpretation it cannot be “scripture alone”. That authoritative interpreter is the Church as Scripture itself testifies to! Now under your view of what the Church is, the church has come up not only with the three main views of the reformers, but according to Protestant scholars, hundreds of other interpretations as well. All of the views of what the correct interpretation of the Lord’s Supper may be all come from sincere Christians who seek the valid interpretation of that scripture. But clearly the Holy Spirit is not protecting them from error – if he was then Protestants, from a view of “Scripture Alone” should all conclude the same interpretation of scripture regarding the Lord’s Supper.

In the Catholic Church, which is visible, as that is what Christ established, and we see this visible Church working very visibly in the book of Acts, the Pope does not act alone. The Magisterium is not “one man”, but a group of men known as bishops (after the 12 apostles) who act together under the protection of the Holy Spirit. A fine text on the subject is John Henry Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Doctrine” and also “From Apostles to Bishops”.

“The traditions of the Catholic Church were not handed down to me, and a great many of them are not contained in scripture, so that is why I shun them.”

Then you are not only ignoring Scripture itself as Jesus established the way in which the Church worked. There were 12 apostles to which he gave authority in the Church. He did not give everyone the authority of the 12 apostles. The 12 apostles did not give everyone their authority. They did however realize that they would not be around forever so they did choose worthy men whom they ordained to succeed them once they were gone. This same witness continues immediately after biblical times. This same Church whose men wrote the scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit canonized the scriptures and declared them to be infallible. The witness of history here simply cannot be ignored. The teaching of the Catholic Church, which is the only Church founded not by a man (such as John Calvin or Martin Luther) but by Jesus, holds fast to His teachings and has done so for 2,000 years. Upon close examination we see that none of the Churches teachings are unbiblical even if some are not explicitly spelled out in scripture (For instance, the word “Trinity” is never used in scripture, but the doctrine of the Trinity is implicitly taught in scripture).

Matthew 16:18-19 is not a “blank check”, this is a gross misunderstanding of scripture, but valid infallible truth that Christ taught. Now Christ of course when he referred to the “keys of the kingdom” was making a reference to the kingdom of David and the “keys of the kingdom” to whom he gave to his equivalent of a “prime minister” in that kingdom. Jesus is doing the same for his own kingdom. David also had 12 officers in his kingdom, and Jesus has called 12 apostles. The Church, from the beginning, has never arbitrarily “added new teachings” (a complete misunderstanding of 2000 years of Christian history). She has defined doctrine against heresy and those who seek to distort the Deposit of Faith, she has interpreted scripture.

Comparing the Catholic Church to the watchtower society is of course a faulty comparison because the watchtower society is a new religion founded by men, not by the Son of God. Now they can try to make the claim which only Jesus’ Church can make, but it does not take much to see right through it. Now we may very well not like the fact that Scott or Adam cannot infallibly interpret scripture, and only those who have been given that authority and exercise it as humble servants can. That doesn’t mean that we can’t study scripture or examine the claims of Christianity. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”. Yep, right on. Lived experience tells us that this is not Protestantism or Denominationalism which is a direct violation against Christ’s high priestly prayer for the unity of his brethren.

--

“The obedience of Romans 1:5 is faith”

It is sufficient to say that is not what Romans 1:5 says.

--

[Brother Adam]

-----------------------------------------------------------

Here is his whole email if you want to read it all for a wider perspective on my response:

Dear Adam,

I will now attempt to wrap up point one in this response. You are, of course, welcome to respond to what I say here, if you feel it necessary. I agree with you that our next topic should center around Romans 5-8, as I feel that these passages contain the central and fundamental issues where you and I disagree.

I will respond to you within the body of your comments below. My comments will be in [red].

Catechetics Online <webmaster@catecheticsonline.com> wrote:

Dear
Today will be my one chance to write out a reply before Palm Sunday (whence I won't have time to spend on any emails). Will respond just using quotes from your email. There is much that we agree on.

-- Regarding the paragraph starting "Too many sincere Christians interpret the phrase".

You are right that Christ is God and did not sin. I'm not sure that there is any disagreement here because you said "We are to deny ourselves, and allow His life to work through us." This principle of cooperation is agreed to by Catholics.

[The Scriptural exhortation to deny ourselves and the word "cooperation" do not belong together. I believe that "submission", or "surrender" would be more appropriate terms. When we are told to deny ourselves, this is not suggesting that we co-operate with the Holy Spirit. It does not say to follow the Holy Spirit's lead. It does not say to follow the example that Christ set for us in His life. What is the function and purpose of the cross? A: Death. It is to cease operating in any capacity of the flesh, whether it be on our own, or in a supposed "cooperation" with God. Christ's obedience was "unto death", and this is the example that we are to follow in denying ourselves and taking up our cross daily. It is not about asking ourselves "What would Jesus do?", and then asking for God's grace to allow us to cooperate in carrying out "Christ-like" actions. Christ died in the flesh so that our flesh could be enlifed with His Spirit, while our old nature, which still remains while we are alive and remain on earth in our body of flesh, would take it's rightful place: cursed and nailed to a tree. I (my old man) am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I (the new man) live; yet not I (the old man), but Christ liveth in me (the new man): and the life which I (the new man) now live in the flesh (which has been positionally and judicially judged, condemned and crucified in Christ) I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.]

Those original passages from the Catechism that I referred to put the ability of man to bear any fruits and do any good works solely within God's grace - we can only do anything by Grace and within Grace, outside of which we cannot do anything. We are utterly dependent on grace. We are limited to a choice either to cooperate with God's grace or rebel against it.

[You are going to have to clarify what you mean when you talk about "grace", because I'm not sure that you and I hear the same word here.]

I found the phrase "He is our life force now" a little bit odd. It reminded me of Star Wars actually. [I don't understand why you would consider my phrase odd. It was just my (admittedly inferior to the wording of the Scripture I was alluding to) paraphrase of Colossians 3:3,4, which essentially says the same thing: "3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." (I'm in a KJV mood today...)] I would venture to say that the "person" of the Holy Spirit works in us every good work.

-- Regarding the first paragraph of the second point.

We've established that man was in a state of original holiness (that man was in harmony with God) at creation, whether we choose to use the term holy or not. At the fall man loses this state [of fellowship, unity, harmony and unbroken communion with: True] with God, but God is not content simply to return man to this state of harmony of God. Rather man, by being reborn as children of God and being brought into adopted sonship through Christ is elevated to a state in God's eyes which is higher than that original state. [Amen to that!] This is the idea of that forth reason for the incarnation I mentioned first time. Though man is a whole new creation (not simply a dung heap covered by snow as Martin Luther would say) [Martin Luther said that a Christian is just a dung heap covered by snow? I would have to fundamentally disagree with his assessment there!] due to concupiscence he is still striving to be like His Savior and root out all sin in his life [Again, you seem to miss the point here. Christ already dealt with our sin and our sins on the Cross. The cross is the only place where we will find true victory over sin. The thing that we struggle (or strive) with is: how to effectively reckon ourselves dead indeed to sin, and alive to God, when our daily experience shows that sin is still very much alive in us. The answer is not to strive against ourselves to become more like Christ, but to completely deny ourselves and submit to death on the cross. This is the will of the Father for the sinner. New life in Christ is His will for His children, born from above.]- something which will not be attained until he is in heaven. [True, and this is because of the flesh, which was dealt with at the cross.] Even though he is no longer under sins domination, he can still choose to sin if he refuses to cooperate with God's grace. [1 Corinthians 15:56 says "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.". This is the dominion which we are no longer under. But, we still experience the effects of sin, in that our flesh is still subject to the law of sin and death. Our Spirit is the part of us that has been redeemed. Our mortal flesh remains condemned to death. The Spirit of life we have in Christ is as eternal as He is. We cannot die again in this sense any more than Christ can. To say that we can is near to blasphemy against our Lord, WHO IS OUR LIFE. To reiterate: Christ, and the eternal life we have in Him is not subject to the law of sin and death. Our sinful flesh is. We are no longer in the flesh, if the Spirit of Christ is in us.]

In terms of Hebrews 12:14, it is more closely matched to Matthew 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." I think we would probably both agree that heaven is devoid of sin, and we will not be inclined to sin in heaven. If not, let me know. As it is, the new believer does not instantaneously no longer sin, but through the process of sanctification must [Not "must' as in an ultimatum, but definitely and progressively "will" by the grace of God, and by the very nature of what we are in Christ.] live and walk with the Holy Spirit.

-- Regarding the second paragraph of the second point.

I would not disagree with the vast majority of what you said, only add a points to what is already there:

I would not term all moral acts as unholy for the unbeliever, they could be if done for the wrong reason, but they can say a lot about God's ability to use anyone for His glory as well. C.S. Lewis talks a lot about the moral act and belief as a powerful proof for the existence of God. Why is it that if the atheist sees a masked gunmen about to shoot up a school yard he would not hesitate to stop him, even if it meant he lost his own life? These acts of virtue and that man would even have a sense or right and wrong lead us to a belief in God. [I never intended to insinuate that God doesn't use unregenerate men in accomplishing His sovereign will. You focus on the acts, whereas my focus is on the nature of the one acting. This is where we metaphorically part ways.]

-- Regarding point three

"The difference in us is that we are tempted to sin because by nature we are sinners."

Yes, we are by nature sinners. As a new creation born again into Christ we are no longer slaves to sin and can overcome sinful desires through the Cross. We must "pick up our crosses and follow him". "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church" (Col 1:24). That is not to say that what Christ did on the cross was not enough to save us and we somehow have to add our own works in order to pay the penalty for sin - this would be pelaganism or semi-pelagan. However it does mean that we can put away sin and cooperate with God's grace. When we choose to follow God instead of our fleshly desires we will still suffer temptation to sin, or worse. This may or may have not been explained well. Let me know if you see what I'm trying to get at. [I agree that you may or may not have explained yourself well. To me, it appears you have, but I'm sure that you will want to try to clarify yourself again, as my understanding of what you are saying is not in your favor.]

-- Regarding point four

You said "In the story of the prodigal son, he never lost his inheritance". Yes he did. Luke 15:14 and 15:24 both say that the son was lost and had spent all that he had. His father's inheritance to him. [We all tend to squander much of what we have been given in Christ during this life, but the moral of the story is that the Father has given us an inheritance that cannot be completely squandered. When the son returned to the father, the father gave his son more than what he had squandered while he was away (out of fellowship with the father, but not out of the father's unconditional love for his son).]

Before you quote Hebrews 6:4 you say "I cannot imagine abandoning my faith, and if you can, then you are right to question your security". This is an "argument from feeling" and cannot stand. [It was not an argument from feeling, but an argument from nature, a point which you repeatedly miss.] Earlier you admitted "Do I have the ability to renounce God, and reject my inheritance? As a fallen sinner, I suppose I do". When man is born again he no longer "fallen" but is made a new creation. [I agree with you here, and admit that fallen was not the best choice of words.] Rather I do not question my "security" because the Bible says that we have the "full assurance of the hope of heaven". However, it never says that we are "eternally secure" or "once we have been saved we cannot fall away".

You rightly point out Hebrews 6:4-6 and are almost making my case for me regarding man's ability to leave the faith. We must remember that the Bible needs to be read in context and as an organic whole. The term is better rendered "apostasy" rather than "fall away". It is indeed very difficult for someone who has been born again and who then commits the sin of apostasy to leave that apostasy and then repent. In fact, while in apostasy it is impossible to bring him to repentance. A similar passage is Matthew 12:31-32, the sin against the Holy Spirit, which has been traditionally interpreted as the ultimate rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

As I mentioned before looking to what others have said and done before us as a source of wisdom has merit and value. I'm going to refer here to another's comments on this passage, who is by far smarter than I am:

"They say 'There is no such thing as penance'. But penance does exist; what does not exist is second Baptism. Penance exists; it is very powerful and it can free from the burden of sins even a person who is deeply submerged in sins, provided he wants to be freed; it can make someone who is in danger completely safe, even though he may have plumbed the depths of evil. If we so desire, Christ can be formed in us anew. Listen to what Paul says: "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you' (Gal 4:9). All that we need do is lay hold of Penance. See how kind God is to us! 'We have fallen once again!' Yet not even then did he punish us: instead, he gave us the medicine of Penance, which is powerful enough to destroy and eliminate all our sins." (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews 6) Emphasis mine.

Penance here refers to confessing and asking forgiveness for our sins. Christians have been contemplating Paul's words on this passage and there is much more that could be said to substantiate this interpretation but I need to move on. If need be I can spend more time on the passage later.

"Anathema!"

I would urge special caution when using this word. The Catholic Church uses the word only in conciliar actions and only with deep consideration and research of the claim that does indeed show itself to be a heresy. It also speaks strongly about Church authority since the time of the Apostles. The term used in the New Testament excludes one from fellowship in the Christian community. If you were to try to anathematize me you would have to stop responding to my emails. [I apologize for my inappropriate use of this word.]

In the next paragraph you state that I am arguing from silence. Rather I believe I am arguing from what scripture does say. The Bible addresses that nothing externally can remove us from God, and yet our own sin not only has removed us from God (original sin), but can remove us from [fellowship with God, which is what 1 John is about. A son can fall out of fellowship with his Father without losing his sonship. Confession restores our fellowship. This is a normal process of the Christian life.] God as well. The result of sin is death [which we did with Christ on the cross, and we are no longer subject to death in the sense you are speaking of here.], even as sons if we consider the father dead (as the Prodigal did) [No, we act as if we are still dead in our sins, even though we are actually alive in Christ.] and bring our inheritance to waste (eternal life) [How can we lose something that is eternal, and how could Christ say it is eternal if it can be lost after it is gained?], then though we remain marked as a son, we do indeed "hold Christ to contempt." [At least you're willing to admit to it...]

"You shoot yourself in the foot by adhering to the teachings of men."

We need to spend some time reflecting on this. You have thus far been offering your teaching on scripture to me. You have been reading the scriptures and making judgments about what they say. If I am to believe you at any time, would I then be "adhering to the teachings of men"? [My point was not that you should listen to my teachings over those of the Catholic Church. I'm a man too, just like the Pope. You shouldn't listen to me any more than you should listen to him. I'm trying to get you to question Catholic teaching, not subscribe to mine.] Rather, Jesus' and Paul's admonishments regarding the "traditions of men" refer to the extra laws of the Pharisees that they imposed on the Jewish population. [How is it that this does not have the same application to the extra-biblical additions of the Papacy?] They do not refer to the teachings of the leaders in the Church. 2 Thess 2:15 and 3:6 both admonish Christians to adhere to the traditions handed onto them and to shun Christians who do not do so. [You define "the Church" as the Roman Catholic Church. I define the Church as the body of Christ, comprised of all born again believers regardless of their "visible church" affiliation. The traditions of the Catholic Church were not handed down to me, and a great many of them are not contained in the Scriptures, so that is why I shun them.] Teaching in the early Church, especially before the Bible was written and then before it was canonized was primarily oral. The faith and the doctrines of the faith are passed on through the authority of Christian leaders, authority given to them by Christ. This however is a whole new topic that we can address in full later.

"Do you seek to prove your faith by your works"

We can not be saved by our works - this is impossible. However, we as Christians will be known by our works (Matthew 25 and elsewhere). The Catholics faith teaches that we are justified by grace alone in faith. That faith that we live in brings about obedience (Romans 1:5). [The obedience of Romans 1:5 is faith. Love results in the obedience you're speaking of. Love is a result of faith.]

You mentioned that you believe Catholics misunderstand Romans 5-8. Let's make that our next topic. [Agreed. Let's start with Romans 5.] In the mean time I will remember you and your family in my prayers, especially your dear little one. [And I will do the same for you brother. Have a wonderful time of celebration, remembrance of, and thanks giving for Christ's work for us! Praise God, He is risen!!!]
Children are such a blessing from the Lord. I can no longer imagine what my life would be like without my child. It brings a deeper understanding of the cross now that I am a father. [Amen, and Praise God!]

[I hope that I was "straight forward", and not "blunt". It's a fine line when we seek to defend truth without offending one another...]


PS (added from "additional comments of March 31st):

A few more comments on your response below.: You said: "2 Thess 2:15 and 3:6 both admonish Christians to adhere to the traditions handed onto them and to shun Christians who do not do so.". I looked up the two verses you referenced here. They are talking about the teachings and traditions which were received from "us", namely, Paul and the other Apostles. Many of the traditions and teachings the Roman Catholic Church did not come from the Apostles, or any other part of the New Testament. Paul was not referring to the future teachings and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. He was speaking specifically, and expressly of the teachings we received from the Apostles (the eye witnesses of Christ, and the men personally chosen, hand selected by the Lord Himself, and appointed by Him (in person and face to face) to teach the world what they saw and learned directly from Him.), as have been committed to us by them through the Holy Spirit in God's Word. The teachings and traditions of men added on by the Roman Catholic Church and passed down over the last 1900 years after the Apostolic age of the Church are not binding. I believe that the Catholic Church has interpreted Matthew 16:18-19 as a blank check from Christ to Peter ("the first pope") to add any new teachings and traditions he, or any "pope" after him sees fit. That is nowhere near what Jesus was saying to Peter, and we allow this interpretation at our own peril. What I see (and not in what would be considered as "bad examples" by you or any other Catholic) in the Catholic Church, is not the Christianity as set forth by Paul and the other apostles, and can only be justified by the Catholic Church's self-serving misinterpretation of the passage in Matt 16.

I am also concerned with the Catholic Church's interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20. My Grandparents have been caught up in the whole Jehovah's Witness thing for almost as long as my Dad has been alive. The Watchtower organization also uses 2 Peter 1:20 to convince their followers that the Watchtower's interpretation is the only right interpretation, and that people who interpret scripture in any other way are using a "private interpretation", and are wrong. The Catholic Church and the Watchtower would do well to read verse 21 to shed light on the meaning in verse 20. I will quote both verses here from the ESV:

"20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someones own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

The clear teaching here is that no prophesy of Scripture came from man's own will or imagination, but was given to them from God by the Holy Spirit. These verses are just pointing out the divine authorship and authority of prophesy in the Scriptures. They are not limiting their interpretation to "men of the cloth", or restricting the "laity" from interpreting Scripture on their own apart from the Roman Church. This was not the intent of God when He gave us His word. The authority of a Church who promotes this interpretation rests in the assumption that theirs is the right interpretation. If they are wrong, then they are claiming authority that has not been given to them from God, and therefore will be held responsible before God on judgment day.

I also intended to respond further to your response below on Hebrews 6, but accidentally skipped over it. I will give my response now.

I do not believe that Hebrews 6:4-6 makes a case for man's ability to leave the faith once they have truly been born again. I do not believe that Scripture teaches that apostates are people who once were saved and then renounced, or lost their salvation. I will attempt to explain my position:

Hebrews 6 (ESV) [my comments in blue. Emphasis mine.]:

"1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine [elementary doctrine is an important phrase] of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation [i.e. the beginning of Salvation, and not the ongoing and life long rule for its continued safe keeping by the believer.] of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits. [Verse 4-6 are continuing the thought of verses 1-3] 4 For it is impossible [not "very difficult"] to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened [not regenerated], who have tasted [not ingested] the heavenly gift, and have shared in [but have not been baptized by] the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted [not metabolized] the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then fall away [prior to receiving regenerative faith], since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles [One who has been born of the Spirit cannot (by nature) produce thorns and thistles, for we have been grafted into a completely different vine. Any fruit we produce that is not from the Spirit, God will prune. If we fail to produce fruit, we wither and die (physically) so that we are not condemned with the world (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:30-32).], it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned."

9 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things--things that belong to salvation. [Which Apostates have NEVER received, but we who Paul is addressing in verse 9 HAVE.]


As for the judgment of believers' works, (which you would say that if they fall short of "God's grace", they would not be saved...) see 1 Corinthians 3:12-16 -

"12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13 each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church do not give God His full due glory, but instead glorify man's supposed responsibility, not in saving themselves, but in remaining saved once they have received God's grace and mercy. I have no confidence in the flesh, and I can't keep silent (for the love of Christ and for others) before teachings that do. With all due respect, I disagree with you on the teachings of the Catholic church as they differ from my own beliefs, as I have received through the Apostles' writings contained in the Scriptures, not given by man, but by the Spirit of God, which Spirit bears witness in me that I am His, and by the life of Whose Son, and by my faith in Him alone, guarantees that I will never die (spiritually, and when He returns, physical death will also be impossible.).

Hebrews 6:

"17 So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. 19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

I do hope that you understand that I am only defending my faith, and not personally attacking you. God bless you!

[kateri05]

wow, what a complete reading of romans out of c ontext. i used to be irritated by that book until a priest made me sit down and read the whole thing together and it is just so darn catholic! :


my husband, who is recently converted from being a fundamentalist, and i just finished romans in our read thru the bible and we constantly stop and discuss how easy it is to take verses and sections out of context from the larger issues that paul is discussing in this letter.


sidenote, i love how you quote luther to a lutheran and he hasn't heard of his theology

[Brother Adam]

He's a Calvinist, not a Lutheran

[kateri05]

[quote]While I am no longer a Lutheran, and therefore would never assume to speak for a Lutheran,[/quote]


i saw this and assumed he was a lutheran with calvinist tendencies

[Brother Adam]

We were just talking about Luther, sorry for the confusion.

[N/A Gone]

Luther had a similar depraved soteriology as calvin. Lutherans have very little in common with luther.

Brother Adam, im still working on this for you buddy. I will have something this weekend hopefully.