The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Roman Catholicism

Hello,

I have recently been involved in discussion with a converted paedobaptist (to Roman Catholicism).

I would greatly appreciate it if you could direct me to answers to some questions that are raised in my mind?

1) Can a Catholic be saved? When I said that Catholics are under a curse by relying on works of the law, he says that Catholics do not rely on works of the law, but the grace of God alone, because (i) sacraments are not works but the means of God's grace as faith is, and (ii) they confer grace on you as a gift, and are not done by you. Now I understand that Catholics believe that the priest acts "in persona Christi" and that Christ is the author of the sacraments. So why then are they a work?

2) Why do the church fathers promote such things as baptismal regeneration (including Augustine, which I have read with my own eyes) and the real presence, and yet we still accept them as Christians, and derive so much of our doctrine from them? Indeed I must apply myself to study church history (which can't happen in a day!), but until I make more significant progress ... Is there a correlation between what we believe and what the fathers believed?

Please could you assist me, as I search more of the Scriptures. May the Lord grant the Spirit of wisdom and revelation.

Many thanks

1. No Roman Catholic can be saved IF they rely on ANYTHING other than the atoning work of Jesus Christ ALONE. If they co-mingle their alleged faith/trust, e.g., Christ PLUS the Church, baptism, Mary, good works, etc., then salvation is not secured. Paul's epistles to Galatians and Romans makes that indisputably clear. There are quite a number of articles found HERE which address this subject. See, for example, Michael Horton's article, What Keeps Us Apart? and John Calvin's article, Antidote to the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Justification (1547).


2. The "Council of Trent", one of the official and authoritative documents of the RCC explicitly states that anyone who holds that salvation is by faith ALONE is "anathema", i.e., salvation is only obtained by having faith PLUS...! Of course, the same can be said for Protestants, sects and cults. Modern semi-Pelagianism/Arminianism makes faith a work which effects an alleged universal grace given to all. See my article By Grace ALONE?.

1. Aside from the inspired, infallible and inerrant written Word, the Bible, no author is infallible. Many of the Church Fathers held to error. The real question, as I've briefly mentioned above, is faith resting on Christ mixed with anything else in order to be saved? Augustine was not guilty of such, despite his falling into such errors as baptismal regeneration. As to Augustine embracing the RCC's doctrine of the Eucharist, this has been myriad times shown to be false. The term "real presence" can be easily misconstrued and is often used to mean different things. Calvin believed in the "real presence" as did all the Reformers and Puritans. But this is a decidedly different thing than "transubstantiation" (Roman) or "consubstantiation" (Lutheran). You can find relevant articles dealing with this subject HERE.

Greetings.

It's often those that convert from Protestant to Catholic that are the most fervent and knowledgeable about Catholic teaching as compared to many cradle Catholics who slept through catechism classes and cannot articulate their faith. As a Catholic converted from evangelical Christianity, I've found it to be a reliable fact that nobody who has left the Catholic Church truly ever understood what the Church teaches to begin with and I have yet to be proven wrong on this. But many converts such as myself can articulate Protestant beliefs as well as Catholic and understand the differences and similarities. As such, I became Catholic in an "eyes wide open" decision.

Regarding your first question, salvation is couched in different terms for a Catholic. Rather than a sinners prayer, a Catholic is saved by the Sacraments, ordinances set in tradition by Christ himself beginning with baptism for the remission of sins and continuing with the holy Eucharist through which Christ promised we may have supernatural life. As oft stated in Hebrews, we must persist to the end, never giving up. The reason you won't hear Catholics being saved is because presumption of salvation is sinful in that it broaches upon the judgements of God and presumes what has not yet been uttered. As Paul said, we will be repaid according to our deeds, "eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality" (Rom 2:6,7) It's in the patient continuance that we find the hope of salvation.

Regarding salvation of works, I believe the error is in pitting one against the other. Ephesians 2:8,9 is a hallmark passage for both Protestant and Catholic that alludes us to something that is promised as a gift that cannot be earned. The point of controversy is that while the grace of God cannot be merited, salvation cannot be attained apart from good works. These juxtaposed realities, both well established by Scripture, paint a picture of salvation that is vouchsafed by the finished work of Christ and yet pursued by our own works. In Matthew 25:31-46, we see an inseparable correlation between works and salvation. Here salvation is granted to those who committed their lives to acts of charity and denied to those who saw the destitute and did nothing. This is not a contradiction that salvation is a matter of belief and confession, but rather an indicator that salvation is more than that.

Regarding your second question, regenerational baptism and the real presence of Christ in the holy Sacrament are both well documented teachings of the early church. The reason this is so important is because of their sheer proximity to the teachings of Christ through the Apostles. When you read the writings of Justin Martyr, Augustine, Tertullin, Pope Clement, etc, you are looking at the teachings of those only a few generations removed from the Apostolic age. The reason the Bible cannot be an arbiter of all Christian truth is because it was never designed to be as such. The teachings of the Apostles were never fully contained in the epistles any more than the teachings of Christ were fully contained in the gospels. Often epistles were written as a followup on what was taught orally. Eventually, all the teachings of the apostles would be committed to writing, but it would take a few centuries for this to occur. 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." Such was the reliance on what was taught and passed down orally that there was no need for an official canon of Scripture until the synods of Rome and Hippo in 392 AD. Somehow the Church survived nearly 4 centuries without an official canon.

I can tell you this, my gravitation to the Catholic Church was gradual indeed, starting when I was 17 years old and consumating into full initiation when I was 31. For me, it wasn't a matter of salvation since I already had a deep and loving relationship to Jesus, but rather a matter of truth. My own family is all Protestant and my dad is a pentacostal pastor. I love them all dearly, but I had to go where I felt the Lord leading me. It's not every Christian's journey, but it was mine.

I hope this helps.

I don't know that I have ever seen the quote below discussed or refuted (not that it hasn't of course.) What is Augustine speaking about when he talks about a daily sacrifice of the Church?

"Thus He is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him."

City of God, Book 10, Chapter 20

First, the whole section of this quote from Augustine is most important and instructive:

And hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by assuming the form of a servant, He became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of God He received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom He is one God, yet in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a sacrifice, that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him. Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one thing is signified by a variety of words, that there may be less weariness when we speak of it much. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given place.

1. It seems that in regard to your specific question regarding "a daily sign", Augustine is simply saying he believes that the Lord's Supper (aka: RCC Eucharist) should be administered daily versus weekly, monthly, etc. Calvin was of the same mind, although there is no Scriptural precept that would regulate the Church to administer the Supper at any particular frequency.

2. Notice that Augustine refers by inferential deduction from "Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one thing is signified by a variety of words,... To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given place.", that the coming of Christ abrogated all the 'types and shadows', i.e., all the OT sacrifices which were signs, thus the Supper is the superior and final sign. Of course, there are many other sections of Augustine's writings where one can clearly see he didn't hold to anything that even approximated 'transubstantiation', but rather held to a spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper.

3. What do you think the phrase, "a daily sign" means?

Thanks for the replies! This has given me much food for thought… I have so many more questions:

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.

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 know of a man (http://www.bereanbeacon.org/) who was a priest for 30 years, and attending Catholic seminary (if I am using the correct terminology), and yet opposes Catholicism so strongly that he believes Catholics must be evangelised.

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...


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:



Perhaps I am misinterpreting the passage, but the Galatians sought the Spirit, and all the effects of His grace by means of works or physical rites of the law, in the same way that sacraments are administered in the RCC Ex opera operato, “from the WORK, worked”, as a means to obtain grace.
I think the problem is threefold:

1) It is a corrupt mixture: reverting to the flesh; it is a different gospel (thus my question, can a Catholic be saved?). In Gal 3, God affirms that it is either or. Through “works of the law OR hearing with faith.” There is no combination of the two. Justification is by the latter, and thereby it is not by the former. Is not the claim that sacraments are only the means, not the cause, of grace, a facade giving licence to revert to the flesh? Is it not a convenient ploy to enable the church to self-regulate the dispensation of “grace,” which God alone sovereignly dispenses at His own will and in His own timing? Is not the presence of strange physical paraphernalia pervading Roman Catholic worship seeking to fill the absence of the real presence of the Holy Spirit? I know many a blasphemous, filthy mouthed, perverse, Catholic classmate, who knows nothing of the grace of God, yet has been baptised, received communion, blessings from the priest, and has been “confirmed”. Likewise, how many baptised infants grow up destitute of the grace of God!

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? Allow me to expand...

2) It undermines the New Covenant. Christ not only bought, but “SECURED an eternal redemption” and then became the “mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance...” (Heb 9:15). He started, continues and completes the whole work. It is absolutely certain that all for whom Christ died must be saved, or He died and intercedes in vain. So to make the dispensation of God’s grace in salvation dependant on the outward performance of works to obtain grace is to make the securing of the redemption dependant on WORKS, not Christ's mediation. Now is the bridge complete? Isn't it relying on works of the law? (Gal 3:10) If salvation is then secured to the believer when he “hears my word and believes him who sent me”, “he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” Matthew 25:31-46 must then be a different sort of judgement: confirming what has happened by the evidence that was produced in the life of the saint. It is a vindication of God’s previous pronouncement, i.e. works testify to true faith, as James makes clear.

2) 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.”

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?

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.

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:


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.




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.


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.

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.


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

Thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly.

I see you don’t want to judge, but surely when you read such words as “anathema,” this means, “cursed” and therefore “damned.” The serious problem I have with this is that it is a pronouncement of man. A few more observations:

1) Did you read my interpretation of Matt 25? I believe James uses the word justify in that sense, not in the sense Paul uses it. As Luther said, “We are saved by faith alone but not by faith that is alone.” See below.
2) You emphasise baptised “for the forgiveness of sins.” Now what do you make of this passage: “Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.” (Acts 8:13) A few moments later, Peter says, “Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:23) He was still unregenerate (in bonds!) and unforgiven, even after his baptism.
3) Baptise in Acts always follows salvation. From Acts 2, “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.” The jailer and Eunuch were already regenerated/born again/saved/ forgiven/justified before their baptism … read the passage in context.
4) Baptism in the NT does not always refer to water. E.g. Jesus, “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!” and Peter, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” In fact, this type saving baptism is spiritual, and is with the Holy Spirit and fire, not water.
5) Christ was baptised for a totally different purpose. It was to “fulfil all righteousness” on our behalf.

Do you refer to Hypercalvinism? True Calvinism in no way precludes the responsibility of man, but vehemently promotes it. Yet, let me add that an unconverted person is dead (Eph 2). A dead man has no free will.

I must confess I am still confused. This links to what you also said above. What do you mean by “saving faith,” when you believe salvation is a process? If a man believes in Christ unto eternal life, then he is SAVED … finished. “…whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (Jn 5:24) There is a definite transition. Now, yes, he must persevere, he must work, he evidence that he is saved. But his work does not in slightest contribute to his salvation. But unless it is God who is faithful, who will “keep you unto the end,” we would certainly fall away.
And therefore a totally different kind of justification…


AMEN to this! But (forgive me if I misinterpret you) why then must we do this and that, before God will give us grace? Let me use a specific example. A man is dying on his sick bed, unconscious. The priest hastily sprinkles him with water, and through this work, supposedly communicates grace to him. Yet the man need not even have FAITH! He need not REPENT! This is surely no manifestation of fruit, but “devout observation of the law works”, and totally contradicts a host of Scriptures. “Repent and believe in the gospel”. Thus my question as to what you believe saving faith is??


Now this is not true. Which evangelicals are you referring to? I believe it is surest way to fall into error by using only one passage. The only reason you have probably found this, is that on forums it is too difficult and long-winded to give many passages. I for one, believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, and the absolute responsibility of man. Some things have no compatibility though. E.g., either Christ is mediator OR Mary is Mediator. There can only be one (1 Tim 2:5).


Oh sorry! I made a serious typo here. I meant to say, God never promised the subsequent infallible transmission of TRADITION through the centuies. But yes, the Word is timelessly infallible. I don't believe 1 Tim 3:15 refers to tradition within the church. Notice the words, the “pillar” and “foundation” of the truth, not the truth itself, notr the transmitter of truth. It supports the truth by upholding the Word.

You're welcome. I don't take lightly the task of defending the holy faith. One question I have though is why you are asking these questions on a Reformation forum instead of a Catholic one? Getting two or three responses from different Catholics of different perspectives might serve you better. I try to be as knowledgeable as I can, but I've only been Catholic for 6 years now. Not to shortchange myself, I do have only limited knowledge.

Which is why I made the point that "faith alone" is something Luther made up and isn't found in Scripture except to refute that concept. Luther's addition of the word "alone" in the vernacular translation was precisely the defiant vandelism of Scripture that gave cause for the need to obtain an imprimatur from the bishop before copying the Bible. It's hard to see Luther as the least bit credible when he attempted to remove any Scripture that confounded his theology. With that said, however, Luther would heartily contend with your notion that baptism is unnecessary: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).





I believe it to be a mistake to use the Bible as lawyers use the law, trying to exude from it what assists their point of view. Now here we have Peter saying clearly that one must be baptized for the remission of sins. Lest there be any misunderstanding, Paul also says, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," (Acts 22:16). Not wanting to believe what the text is clearly saying, it seems you are scraping for something to contradict it with. The challenge of any Christian is to allow the Bible to shape our beliefs and resist the temptation to bend it to fit our predetermined conclusions.

Here again I think you miss the larger point. Whether it be the Philipian jailer and his family, the Ethiopian Enuch, or the new disciples Paul encounted in Ephesus, all were water baptized as an initiation into the Church. The burden of proof really lies on you to demonstrate that this step could be bypassed and such a practice of opting out of baptism was accepted and taught.


It's unseeming to suggest that Peter was flatly contradicting what he said to the crowd gathered at Pentacost. The baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism do not exclude one another, nor is baptism in the Holy Spirit a substitute for water baptism as aforementioned was a hard requirement to enter the Church.

If we are following Christ who set for us an example by being baptized, how much more unthinkable to suggest that baptism was done away with. No, Jesus did not need baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but it was at His baptism that He received the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. His teachings on baptism for the forgiveness of sins became very evident in the teachings of the Apostles who taught what they heard from Him.

I'm well familiar with TULIP Calvinism and have never heard it referred to as hypercalvinism. Yes, men are held responsible, but that's not what I said, is it? I said that Calvinism excludes the participation and free will of man. Men are either predestined, therefore infallibly saved, or they are reprobate, having no chance at salvation. Calvinism tries to make the case that although these fates are set, men still freely choose. This confounds all logic!


Dismas (the thief on the cross) had saving faith. He confessed Jesus and believed and was assured of eternal life because of his belief. The term "saving faith" is the initial faith that one has in Christ and has no bearing on the controversy of whether someone in that moment is eternally locked in to salvation. The elimination of man's freewill decision to pursue salvation until the end, being "faithful until death" does not add to God's glory, as the Calvinist might claim, but rather diminishes it by creating automons with the illusion of free will. The very fact that God can woo us into following Him freely for the rest of our lives, though we are equally free to relent, only establishes to the utmost his worthiness to be praised by all creation.

I'm sure it befuddles many Protestants when the paralized man was lowered to Jesus through the roof and Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven." While it cannot be stressed enough that those who hear the gospel have a duty to embrace it to be saved, it must also be said that God's saving grace works inside and outside of our mental faculties. Jesus told His disciples, "you are clean because of the word I have spoken to you," a pronouncement of absolution again that was not solicited. Protestant and Evangelical theology hinges all of salvation on a person's mental assent to the gospel, but it's a great comfort to that our minds, subject to weakness, is not the only vehicle to salvation. How is a child saved? How is an ungospelled person saved? How about the profoundly retarded or autistic? Of this you can be sure, God will save whom he will outside of the tidy little formulas that people have made for Him.





Timothy was referring to the oral tradition people were given. The oral tradition started with Christ who, not writing his teachings down in a book, promised "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you," (Jn 14:26). So the Apostles were sent to "teach the nations". The oral tradition was passed on through a process called Apostolic Succession the first example of which can be found in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Not seen in the early church is the practice or expectation of conforming all teachings to a book. So when we say, "the Word of God" we are speaking of the full revelation of God through the Church, the highest source of authority, having been commissioned by Christ himself. This is why Augustine once remarked that he would not even believe in the gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church; this coming from a man contemporary to the canonical councils.

With all due respect, it seems that you never really studied and/or understood the ACTUAL and historic (confessional) doctrines of Calvinism. But, if it is of any consolation to you, there are many professing Calvinists who are members of Reformed churches, some even holding offices; pastor, elder or deacon, who neither understand these doctrines. Many do "know" what they teach but simply choose to reject them and substitute something else which they deem more "palatable".

On the positive side, let me offer what Calvinism ACTUALLY teaches concerning the sovereignty of God and the will of man, particularly in the matter of salvation.

1. God is absolutely and indisputably sovereign in ALL THINGS and has absolute and indisputable authority over ALL THINGS. In short, God has foreordained ALL THINGS according to His own eternal determinate counsel and according to His good pleasure. The Lord God did not "look down the corridors of time" in order to gain some insight into what uncreated men would do and upon that basis decree what He saw. I could offer myriad and incontrovertible biblical passages which show this to be true, but space and time do not allow me to do so. However, I will provide a document which does this nicely HERE.

2. Concerning the "freedom of the will" of man, the contention which exists between biblical Calvinism and everyone else; Rome, sects, cults and most other Protestants, originates in the doctrine of Original Sin. Put another way and in the form of a question, What were the noetic effects of the Fall? Did God's threat of "death" upon disobedience really happen? And if so, what is the proper understanding of that death? Biblical Calvinism insists that "death" means cessation of that which dies. All others insist that "death" means "transformation", i.e., a different form of life. Calvinism teaches that Adam's spiritual nature with its original predisposition/inclination toward God and all that is good DIED; ceased to exist and thus man's predisposition/inclination was one of hatred toward God and all that is good. (cf. Gen 6:5; 8:21; Jer: 17:9; 13:223; Eccl 9:3; Matt 15:19; Eph 2:1-3; 4:17-19; et al)

The difference in understanding the condition of man's will, which is controlled by a man's intellect and affections (emotive), is not a contemporary phenomena. It has been a matter that has been disputed since the days of the Apostles. Historically, some of the more well known events of debate and consequent official documents and pronouncements are, for example, The Council of Orange (against Pelagius), John Calvin's The Eternal Predestination of God (against Pighius), The Canons of Dordt (against the Arminian remonstrance), and all the great Reformed confessions and catechisms which all agree on this matter across denominational lines, e.g., Thirty-nine Articles, Belgic Confession, Westminster Confession, London Baptist Confession, Savoy Confession, et al.

3. Fallen man did not lose his ability to exercise his will, he being a 'free-agent', is thus being wholly responsible for all his thoughts, words and deeds. He always chooses that which he desires most in any given circumstance. Being under the just condemnation of God as a child of Adam, having inherited the corruption of nature as was the promised curse given by God to Adam, the federal head of the human race, man is not "owed a chance" to redeem himself, whether by works or by faith in Christ. God would be and is perfectly within His holy right to condemn all human beings at conception to eternal hell due to their wicked nature AND the imputation of guilt which is owned by them. (cf. Jh 3:36; Rom 5:12-21; 1Cor 15:21,22) Thus, all men are 'free' to choose according to their nature. A fallen, unregenerate man will most naturally and freely choose that which is sinful and nothing more. He will not and cannot choose that which is contrary to his nature; God, righteousness, holiness, good, etc. What all others who oppose this biblical truth bring forth is a contrived fiction that is nothing less than illogical and contrary to even common sense and nature itself. It is the most hated doctrine of all, far more so than divine predestination, definite atonement, irresistible grace or the preservation/perseverance of the saints. Even God Himself does not possess a "free-will" as held by non-Calvinists, for God cannot choose that which is contrary to His nature either.

4. Due to the inability of man to seek after God nor even desire salvation, the Holy Spirit must do a sovereign work of regeneration of a sinner's soul; re-creating the will by creating within that soul a new nature with its consequent predisposition/inclination toward God. This is a monergistic work which allows man to hear the truth of the Gospel in mind and heart and thus repents of his sin and flees after Christ with a true faith in order to be reconciled to God and receive the remission of sins. It is the sinner himself/herself who experiences the conviction of sin, who repents, who believes and who yearns after holiness due to the radical change of nature and the power of the Holy Spirit within. Thus, the charge that man has no part whatsoever in salvation is false one. But it is equally false to claim that there is any kind of merit or co-operation between God and man that results in salvation. Salvation is all of God from beginning to end. God has determined the means as well as the end which shall infallibly come to pass. (cf. Ps 33:11; 135:6; Prov 19:21; 21:30; Isa 41:22; 44:7; 45:21; 46:9,10; Dan 4:35; Acts 2:22-24; 4:26-28; 13:48; et al)

That's a good question, I think Catholics have to cut through a great deal of religious distractions and traditions to get to the heart of the matter which is that we are depraved sinners in need of the grace of God & the blood of Christ applied to us via the Holy Spirit in which we are made new creatures in the image of Christ. I think it's essential to rise above the malaise of dead ritual/traditional and experience that personal and initmate relationship between ourselves and our savior in which we go to our inner chamber and lay it all before the LORD. Our soul, our sins, our daily needs, everything, give it all up to Him...... and read the Bible becasue his WORD trumps everything!

No men are infalliable. I believe some of Augustine's later writings contradicts or at least detracts from the whole Baptismal Regenration concept.

To figure out what the ECF's really believe about real presence and how it lines up with today's RCC perspective on real presence is a HUGE undertaking that I won't touch. To me, the Reformed view makes more spiritual sense....

AC

I think it means exactly what you said. I was unaware that Calvin was of the same mind. Since both Augustine and Calvin advocated daily communion, are there any Reformed churches that practice it?

Yes, there are a number of individual congregations which administer the Supper weekly. I am not aware, however, of any denomination which has a mandate to do so, although there may be one or perhaps more which do. If there are, they would be much smaller in size. The larger denominations have no policy, e.g., OPC, PCA.

Thanks for your input AC … I think you put it well: “a great deal of religious distractions.”

via_dolorosa: I feel I hardly need to reply after Pilgrim’s post, but let me add a few more things…


Are you hoping that I somehow feel compelled to agree with Luther in these issues because I am a Protestant?


Merely accusing me of producing trifling objections does not prove anything. Please answer the objection. Why was he still in the bond of iniquity? Obviously, Acts 22:16 and Peter’s words mean something far different from what you think they mean. Let me add,

(1) Two different commands are given: rise and be baptised, AND wash away your sins.

(2) As Heb. 10:19–22 shows, the believer's sins are “washed away” through faith in “the blood of Jesus,” with the result that the believer is “sprinkled clean” and “washed with pure water.”

(3) I could give you a Baptists answer to Acts 2:38 and the like, but let me be honest and say that I have, well, very unconventional views of baptism at the moment. But considering that you open a can of worms... I think the disciples were going through a transitionary period between John’s (water) and Christ’s (Spirit and fire) baptism. As Acts 19:3 says, “And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into JOHN’S baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On HEARING THIS, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Notice that: (i) John’s baptism was only a water baptism of preparatory repentance to make way for Christ. (ii) Christ’s Baptism is Spiritual. “I have baptized you with water, BUT he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. “ “As many of you as were baptized INTO CHRIST have put on Christ.” What occured between this in Acts was transitionary. Practically the entire NT that follows Acts presents baptism as spiritual, not physical. Should you say to me, “am I baptised?” I would say, absolutely – by Christ Himself, with the Spirit! I feel compelled to take this whole view, because "baptism SAVES," BUT, "not as a removal of dirt from the body," i.e. spiritually. Quite frankly I've grown up a Baptist all my life, but can't justify the phrase "outward sign of an inward work." Baptism is the inward work.
Yet, my views are formative, and I would rather not debate this at the moment.


Not at all. On the contrary, he was justified by faith, the moment he believed.


Of all the things you’ve said, this is to me the most outrageous. You constantly quote texts such as Acts 2:38, and yet practically overlook such Scriptures as “REPENT therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out.” Can an unbelieving unregenerate brain dead man repent? No; he will perish. Can an ungospelled man be saved? No; yet they are both without excuse (Rom 1).


I would emphasise what Pilgrim said. Man (post fall) has a will, but it is a slave, either to Satan or to God. “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.” Just a taste from Augustine, confirming Phil 2:13:


Because Catholics miss this point, they presume that unregenerate man has some power to still seek God through external means. “No one seeks after God.” (Rom 1) All is in vain. Baptism; the whole lot. I couldn’t agree more, Pilgim, “Holy Spirit must do a sovereign work of regeneration of a sinner's soul; re-creating the will by creating within that soul a new nature with its consequent predisposition/inclination toward God. This is a MONERGISTIC work… ” AMEN BROTHER

Thus you have, as Whitefield said, so many unregenerate men and clergy lke Simon Magus, lead into a false sense of security by the performance of external deeds. They have but the form of religion, but not the power thereof.

LOTS to comment on in this statement, but I will make my responses brief.

1. re: "There are two different types of works spoken of in Scripture, one part of the gospel and the other categorically excluded from the gospel." I know of no such distinction. Works are certainly of two types; a) those done by grace with faith in order to please God according to His revealed will; the Bible. b) those done by all the unregenerate/unbelieving who have no faith and thus they are ipso facto sinful. Most sinful works are never done with the intention of gaining salvation. Those with a false profession are most likely to be guilty of those intentions.

2. re: "One either trusts that Christ died once and for all for sins or one trusts in justification through the law with no middle ground." True faith doesn't simply believe in biblical and/or historical facts about Christ and/or His work, but rather and critically important, true faith believes (grasps, clings to, loves, adores, needs, trusts, etc.) the Lord Christ himself as a person; the incarnate Son of God, Lord of All and Redeemer of His sheep. Sandemanianism is a pernicious error! Secondly, the most common error among professing Christians is in fact an admixture of faith and works. This is precisely the focus of Paul's epistle to the Galatians.

Galatians 3:1-3 (ASV) "O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified? This only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?"

Thus, Paul makes it perspicuously clear that one is justified (divinely declared righteous, once for all) when one believes on Christ with a true saving faith ALONE. This is an antidote to both one who thinks that justification comes by works of the law of any kind, not specifically the Jewish law, OR by an admixture of faith and works.

3. re: "As James says, a man is justified by works (keeping in mind the kind of works he's referring to) and not faith alone." The 'works' which James is referring to are those works which are done by faith and in strict accordance to God's holy commandments, precepts, statues, judgments, testimonies, et al (cf. Ps 119; Rom 7; Eph 2:10).

It is imperative that one correctly understand the word "justified" as used by James. The CONTEXT in chapter two alone should be sufficient to reveal this, e.g., 2:17,26. But even without the context, James cannot be in any way implying that a man is saved by faith AND works for this would be a total contradiction to Paul's teaching in Romans and Galatians and elsewhere. The issue of 'forensic justification' is NOT in view in James chapter 2. A little study of the word "justify(ied)" (Gk: dikaioutai) sheds an enormous amount of light on this matter. This word is used in both the OT and NT in regard to 'revelation; that which is revealed, to show, shown, evidenced by'. A few salient passages should suffice to prove the point: Jer 3:11; Ezk 16:51,52; Matt 11:19; Lk 16:15 and Rom 3:4 where it is used in reference to God. Thus, true saving faith will be shown to be true by good works done by the one professing to believe in Christ. Again, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with forensic justification.