Originally Posted by Peytonator
Pilgrim, thanks for the references; I’m in the process of reading them. What do you mean by co-mingling faith/trust? To use one example, a Catholic catechism says, “Taken up to heaven [Mary] did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.” Don’t all Catholics therefore by definition trust in something other than Christ ALONE, e.g. Mary? Please also see below.
Doctrines regarding Mary can often be a source of confusion simply because of what is implied at face value without further exploration. I remember hearing terms like Coredemptrix and thinking Catholics hold Mary in the same esteem as Christ in the winning of our salvation, as if she shed her blood just as efficaciously for sins. Terms like Coredemptrix and Mediatrix simply acknowledge Mary's role in the drama of salvation. It's an affirmation of the free will of man that God required man's cooperation to bring the Savior into the world. Mary, being the subject of the oldest prophesy given that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent, becomes the portal through which salvation came into the world and for that we owe her much gratitude. There is no confusion about the difference between Mary's role and that of Christ regarding that finished work that merited salvation for all who believe. Christ alone is our Great High Priest according to the order of Melchizadek and it is in faith in Christ alone, and the confession of that faith that we attain the hope of salvation.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
via_dolorosa: I don’t mean to attack by answering in the following way. But many serious questions come to mind, the first of which is this:
I have not been baptised, and I believe the doctrine of justification by faith alone. I trust in Christ alone for my whole salvation, and have experienced the sin-shattering power of God in my life. Am I anathema, unregenerate, and on my way to hell?
I cannot comment on the judgement of God regarding your eternal destination without committed the same sin of presumption that others do. Regarding salvation by faith alone, it needs to be said that the only time you see the words "faith alone" in Scripture is when James says a man is saved by works and NOT faith alone. I don't say this to downplay the significance of saving faith, but rather to demonstrate that faith is only the first step. Since the early Church, baptism has been the way through which sinners entered into God's holy Church, a sure indicator that this is what Christ taught:

Quote
Acts 2
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.”
41 Then those who gladly[g] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Again we see this with the Philipian jailer and his family (were there a few infants? there certainly wasn't an age of accountability) and again with the Ethiopian eunuch who was taught by Philip. The fact that Christ, as firstborn among many brethren, was himself baptized ought to seal the argument for good.



Originally Posted by Peytonator
Certainly only those who persevere to the end will be saved. But
(1) Doesn't Scripture point to a definite transition: darkness to light, death to life, power of Satan to power of God?
(2)To put our hope in our perserverance – is that not trusting in works? God desires us to have the “full assurance of hope until the end”, to say, “I KNOW Him whom I have believed, and am persuaded that HE is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day" 2 Timothy 1:12. It is a hope that is anchored behind the curtain, not in himself that allowed him to say this...

With all due respect to this forum and its platform, the disagreement I have with Calvinism is that it precludes the participation and free will of man at every step as if the free will of man necessarily trespasses upon the sovereignty of God, his glory, and the perfect work on the cross by which we have been vouchsafed eternal life. Scripture warns us repeatedly of enduring to the end: "Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown" (Rev 3:11). And again we are told to be faithful until death in order to receive the crown of life (Rev 2:11) Far from man's freewill being excluded at every step, I see Scripture as painting it necessary at every step.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
Is the work of Christ a whole bridge or half a bridge? If we must finish the bridge by works, is not grace no longer grace? If salvation (yes, not merited by us) is obtained by works, then surely it is "through the law," and "if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose"(Gal 2:21). Works are certainly the fruit of faith, but Paul makes a penetrating distinction between the two:

Quote
Gal 3:1-5, “Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?”


Here is perhaps the greatest source of confusion regarding works. There are two different types of works spoken of in Scripture, one part of the gospel and the other categorically excluded from the gospel. When we are assured that "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ," (Gal 2:16) this is a reference to strict obervation of the Jewish law, particularly those regarding the remission of sin. One either trusts that Christ died once and for all for sins or one trusts in justification through the law with no middle ground. But when James says that "faith without works is dead," (James 2:17) he is speaking of works of a completely different nature. James, having been taught by the Savior himself, was referring to the riches we are to store up in heaven by our works. While it cannot be said that works earn salvation, it must be said that salvation is not merited by anyone bereft of works, a sure lesson to be gleaned from the parable I quoted in Matthew 25. This isn't a devout observation of the law works, but rather works of charity and the spreading of the everlasting gospel which springs from saving faith. The lesson in Jesus cursing the fig tree that bore no figs, or the parable of the tree that bore no fruit, ought to drive this point home. As James says, a man is justified by works (keeping in mind the kind of works he's referring to) and not faith alone.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
Can a Catholics faith rest ONLY on Christ, when all these works must of necessity be performed to first obtain the grace? Doesn’t this make grace void, and empty the work of Christ of it’s intrinsic efficacy?
It's apart from the grace of God that our works are meaningless.

[quote]
Lk 17
7 And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down to eat’?
8 But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’?
9 Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not.
10 So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’”

The fact that we are "unprofitable servants" ought to be of the greatest comfort to us for it alludes to the grace by which we're saved. We work because we do "what is our duty to do". It is the obligation that we owe after such a perfect work has been done for us. Should the person who does good works in hope of salvation be afraid? No. Rather it is the person who receives such a wonderful gift and does nothing with it (think of the parable of the talents) that ought to fear for the perdition of their soul.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
It destroys the autonomous sovereign and self-regulating rule of the Holy Spirit of Christ in giving grace. Take for example baptism. The RCC holds that “Baptism…by which men and women are freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God…is validly conferred only by washing with true water together with the required form of words.” Yet Scripture describes the new birth as happening due to to the free sovereign agency of the Holy Spirit: “the wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Here again is the mistake of pitting one article of salvation against another. One problem with evangelicals is that they like nice, tidy formulas based on just one thing Scripture has to say on the topic of salvation and hinge it all on that passage. Scripture has much to say on the topic of salvation and being born again is just one. Scripture also speaks of baptism, faithful endurance, works (bearing fruit), confession, the indwelling of the Spirit (parable of the foolish virgins) and vigilance.....tying each of these irrevokably to one's eternal fate.

The paradigm shift I experienced in becoming Catholic is one from the either/or of Protestantism to the both/and of Catholicism. This is a core shift that changes the dynamic of many topics we disagree on. For instance, the manner in which Mary is honored does not intrude upon the glory of God any more than the king honoring Mordecai, Esther's uncle, in any way subtracted from the king's glory and dominion. Once this shift occurred for me, it was simply a matter of training my mind to no longer think of the wares of salvation or the economy of heaven as a zero sum game.

Originally Posted by Peytonator
Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
This is why we are told in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."
You will admit that this statement was made by an apostle to the Thessalonians. God never promised the subsequent infallible transmission of truth through the centuries. How then can Scripture (which is always infallible) stand on equal ground with tradition?

Actually God promised precisely this: "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come." (Jn 16:13) Jesus also breathed on the apostles saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit" which was consumated on the day of Pentacost when the Spirit descended upon them in the form of flames. It's actually far more difficult to demonstrate that Jesus intended the Church to be governed by a book since Scripture seems to indicate strongly that it is the Holy Spirit that would lead the church. The Apostles consulted no scripture when they eliminated circumcision or changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Even the Bible itself which would come about in the 4th century was a product of the authority of the Church. It's not that Scripture stands (or does not stand) on equal ground with tradition, it's that the Scripture is part of the entire revelation of God through the holy Church. Paul makes reference to this in calling the Church the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1Tim 3:15). It was by this authority, passed directly from Christ to the apostles, that the canon was made official. It's truly a queer notion that Luther came up with that makes a master out of the servant and servant out of the master.

In Christ's most Sacred Heart

Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.