Follow
It should go without saying that Roman Catholic saints are intentionally held up as examples for the flock to imitate. Lest it be alleged that we have imagined this, we defer to Pope John Paul II, who at World Youth Day 2002, explained this in no uncertain terms:
“How many saints, especially young saints, can we count in the Church’s history! In their love for God their heroic virtues shone before the world, and so they became models of life which the Church has held up for imitation by all…”
On the back cover of John Paul II’s Book of Saints, we are told that he “left a treasury of ideals and hope for the future in these ‘examples of courage and coherence.’ He offered us these real lives lived in extraordinary ways as ones to identify with, aspire to, and ask for intercession.” “Saints” are examples with whom we can identify, and who we aspire to imitate.
Indeed, the Roman church has held saints up for “imitation by all” precisely because we can identify with them. The Roman Catholic web site, Catholic Legate, emphasizes this, listing it as one of the three pillars of the doctrine of the communion of saints:
“The second pillar of this doctrine rests on the imitation of virtuous people. Many Protestants … do not accept that we are to imitate anyone but Jesus [but] it is not a biblical teaching to refuse imitation of the saints.”
Another Roman Catholic apologetics web site, explains that part of the canonization process through which saints are officially recognized, is to determine whether their lives can be held up “as examples to be imitated.”
We repeat this principle for a reason. Saints are considered necessary to inspire the flock, encourage obedience, and to offer real life examples for the sheep to imitate. However, when the life of a saint is examined in the light of Scripture and found wanting, the same people who claimed that saints are to be imitated will then run from the saint and claim that saints are not to be imitated at all, and that it is foolish to try. Where once saints were held up for imitation by all, we suddenly “cannot understand them” for “they are beyond us” and we should not try to imitate them.
In his famous Letter to Dr. Pusey on “Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching,” Cardinal Newman responded to concerns about the extravagance of devotion, the hyperdulia or “hyperveneration” of Mary. In particular he was responding to the extreme devotion to Mary as documented by St. Alphonsus de Liguouri in his work, The Glories of Mary. Newman wrote,
“[I]t never surprises me to read anything extraordinary in the devotions of a saint. Such men are on a level very different from our own, and we cannot understand them. I hold this to be an important canon in the Lives of the Saints, according to the words of the Apostle, ‘The spiritual man judges all things, and he himself is judged of no one.’ But we may refrain from judging, without proceeding to imitate. I hope it is not disrespectful to so great a servant of God to say, that I never have read his Glories of Mary; but here I am speaking generally of all Saints, whether I know them or not;—and I say that they are beyond us, and that we must use them as patterns, not as copies.” (§5.4, emphases added).
It is necessary to document Newman’s wavering rejection of the “imitation” of the saints, because this week we will examine their words and practices; Newman’s words here are an implicit acknowledgement that Rome’s saints model for us a veneration that is indistinguishable from worship. Otherwise, Newman would have had no reason to distance himself from them.
We must understand that the saints are people who are very much like us in their humanity, and so their “holiness” is held out by Rome as an example to us that we might imitate it. Newman’s opinions aside, John Paul II included Maximilian Kolbe, Louis de Montfort and Alfphonsus de Liguori in his Book of Saints, not because “we cannot understand” Kolbe, or because Liguori is “beyond us,” or because we ought not aspire to be like de Montfort. He included them in his book precisely because they are examples that can and should be imitated.
Last week, we evaluated the standard objection to the charge that Roman Catholics worship Mary. In that article, we highlighted the difficulty for the Roman apologists. While they maintain that there is a distinction between hyperdulia, which is offered to Mary, and latria, which is offered to God, they are unable to explain or define a meaningful, objective difference between the two. The only difference between hyperdulia and latria, it seems, is that hyperdulia is not latria, because if it were, it would be latria, but it’s not, so it isn’t. No matter the extremes and excesses of hyperdulia, it cannot possibly be worship because if it were, it would not be hyperdulia. That is mere tautology. What is needed, and what we introduced last week, is an objective definition of latria and idolatry from the Roman Catholic catechism.
Therefore, instead of asking, “Do Roman Catholics worship Mary?”, we ask rather,
“Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as the Lord and Master of everything that exists? Do Roman Catholics acknowledge her as infinite in Mercy and Love? In their veneration of Mary do Roman Catholics acknowledge in respect and absolute submission, the ‘nothingness of the creature,’ who would not exist but for her? Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as creator and savior? Do Roman Catholics divinize Mary, and transfer to Mary what belongs to God?”
We will start with “creator” because that is usually the first objection to the charge of Mariolatry. We will then follow with every individual component of worship as identified in Rome’s definition of latria, and by this we shall determine whether hyperdulia is just latria by another name.
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as Creator?
This ought to be the easiest charge to refute, for Mary is herself created, and therefore came after the first moment of creation. Yet this has been no barrier to the remarkable ingenuity of Rome’s passionate Marian devotees. It begins with Mary’s universal motherhood, which Pope Leo XIII affirmed in his encyclical Adiutricem, saying that Mary became the mother of “the whole human race” at the foot of the cross. But her motherhood is necessarily elastic, according to apologist, Fr. Donald Calloway, because Mary’s spiritual motherhood stretches all the way back to Adam and Eve:
“Mary’s spiritual maternity is elastic, stretching all the way back to the beginning of time, because God made her the spiritual mother of all in light of the fact that she is the original intention of motherhood in the divine plan. … Yes, even Adam and Eve call her mother.”
Yet even before Adam and Eve, Mary was yet a mother, taught St. Chrysologus, for how could there ever be a time when Mary is not a mother? She was even a Mother before Adam and Eve were created, yes even when the world was yet formless and void (Genesis 1:2).
“Mary is called a Mother. And when is Mary not a Mother? The gathering together of the waters He called Seas (Maria) [Genesis 1:10]” (St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 146)
But Fr. William Most takes it back even further, defending the title “Eternal Mother,” because “her Motherhood … was planned from all eternity.”
Such adulation is then increased by St. Thomas of Villanova, who observes that while it was by God’s Word, His fiat, that all things were brought into existence, yet, when Mary gave her permission for God to become Man, her fiat was even more powerful, more efficacious than God’s, and is to be venerated above even His:
“O powerful Fiat!” exclaims St. Thomas of Villanova; “O efficacious Fiat! O Fiat to be venerated above every other Fiat! For with a fiat God created light, heaven, earth; but with Mary’s fiat,” says the saint, “God became man, like us.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
When we consider that Mary’s powerful fiat is greater even than that of God, it is no wonder then that St. Bernard concludes the obvious: that Mary was there even earlier than Genesis 1:10. She must have been there at Genesis 1:1, with God, forming all things:
“St. Bonaventure… says, addressing her, The world which thou with God didst form from the beginning continues to exist at thy will, O most holy virgin;” the saint adhering in this to the words of Proverbs applied by the Church to Mary: I was with Him forming all things.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary).
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as Creator? Yes, they certainly do, and Rome’s saints are the very model Roman Catholics are to imitate. Once this is established, the rest of the components of latria, or worship, flow from it with epistemological certainty.
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as Savior? Yes they do:
“St. Bonaventure says that Mary is called “the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary).
“For thy eternal glory, let it be said that thou hast snatched a wretched creature from hell, to which he was already condemned, and that thou hast led him to thy kingdom. O yes, sweet Mother, I hope to have the consolation of remaining always at thy feet, in heaven, thanking and blessing and loving thee eternally.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“…Yes, Mary is necessary for me at Thy side and everywhere: that she may appease thy just wrath, because I have so often offended Thee; that she may save me from the eternal punishment of Thy justice, which I deserve; …Would that everyone might know I should be already damned, were it not for Mary!” (St. Louis de Montfort’s Prayer to Jesus)
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as Lord and Master of everything that exists? Yes they do:
“‘At the command of Mary, all obey, even God.’ St. Bernardine fears not to utter this sentence.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth, and nothing is impossible to thee who canst raise those who are in despair to the hope of salvation.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.” (Pope Pius XII, Radio message to Fatima, Bendito seja, May 13, 1946, AAS 38, p. 266)
“‘Yes, Mary is omnipotent,’ says Richard of St. Laurence, ‘for the queen by every law enjoys the same privileges as the king. And as,’ he adds, ‘the power of the son and that of the mother is the same, a mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent son.’” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“And we honor her, glorified above all the Saints, crowned with stars by her Divine Son and seated at His side the sovereign Queen of the universe.” (Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Encyclical of September 8, 1894)
“Let me remind you again of the dependence shown by the three divine Persons on our Blessed Lady. Theirs is the example which fully justifies our dependence on her.” (St. Louis de Montfort, Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin)
“Hail Mary, my dear Mother, my loving Mistress, my powerful sovereign! …it is thy privilege to triumph gloriously in Heaven at the right hand of thy Son and to hold absolute sway over angels, men and demons; it is thy privilege to dispose of all the gifts of God, just as thou willest.” (St. Louis de Montfort’s Prayer to Mary).
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as Infinite…? Yes they do:
“For as Aquinas correctly states: ‘The Blessed Virgin, because she is the Mother of God, has a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God.'” (Pius XII, Encyclical Fulgens Corona, September 8, 1953)
“St. Thomas of Villanova says the same thing: ‘There is something infinite in being the Mother of him who is infinite.’” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
… in Mercy… ? Yes they do:
“Hence St. Leo observes, ‘that the Blessed Virgin has so merciful a heart, that she deserves not only to be called merciful, but mercy itself.’“ (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“Mary is also Mother of Mercy because it is to her that Jesus entrusts his Church and all humanity. …Thus Mary becomes Mother of each and every one of us, the Mother who obtains for us divine mercy.” (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor)
… and Love? Yes they do:
“Mary is our Mother, not as we have already observed, according to the flesh, but by love: ‘I am the Mother of fair love.’” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
“…and if we concentrate all the love that mothers bear their children, husbands and wives one another, all the love of angels and saints for their clients, it does not equal the love of Mary toward a single soul.” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary)
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary in respect and absolute submission? Yes they do:
“Remember that you belong exclusively, unconditionally, absolutely, irrevocably to the Immaculate: Whoever you are, whatever you have or can, whatever you do (thoughts, words, action) and endure (pleasant, unpleasant, indifferent things) belong to the Immaculate.” (Maximillian Kolbe, St. Maximillian Kolbe’s Rule of Life for those Consecrated to the Immaculate Virgin)
Do Roman Catholics acknowledge “the ‘nothingness of the creature’…”? Yes they do:
“Consequently, …it belongs to Her all your intentions; therefore, may she transform them, add others, take them away, as She likes (in fact, She does not offend justice). You are an instrument in Her hand, therefore do only what She wants; …Recognize that everything you have comes from Her and nothing from you.” (Maximillian Kolbe, St. Maximillian Kolbe’s Rule of Life for those Consecrated to the Immaculate Virgin)
“…who would not exist but for” her?
“O Immaculate, my life (every moment of it), my death (where, when and how) and my eternity belongs totally to you. Of everything You do whatever You like. …Recognize that everything you have comes from Her and nothing from you.” (Maximillian Kolbe, St. Maximillian Kolbe’s Rule of Life for those Consecrated to the Immaculate Virgin)
“St. Bonaventure… says, addressing her, ‘The world … continues to exist at thy will, O most holy virgin;‘ ” (Liguori, the Glories of Mary).
Yes they do.
To return now to the Catechism and its definition of idolatry, we must ask whether Roman Catholics “divinize Mary, and transfer to Mary what belongs to God.” They most certainly do. When Maximilian Kolbe can say “that the will of Mary should be the will of God for us,” or that Mary is the “quasi-incarnation” of the Holy Spirit, it is clear that Mary has been divinized by Rome and her saints. That Roman Catholics have imitated Kolbe in this is evidenced by the devoted faithful at Catholic Tradition.org:
“The Most Blessed Virgin is the one in whom we venerate the Holy Spirit, for she is His spouse. The Third Person of the Blessed trinity never took flesh; still, our human word ‘spouse’ is far too weak to express the reality of the relationship between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit. We can affirm that she is, in a certain sense, the ‘incarnation’ of the Holy Spirit.”
Yes, indeed, Roman Catholics divinize Mary, and transfer to Mary what belongs to God. But the original question remains: Do Roman Catholics actually worship Mary? Charity demands that we respond in the negative. We simply love Mary too much to claim that it is she who Roman Catholics worship. The “Mary” that Roman Catholics worship bears no resemblance to the simple Jewish handmaiden of the Lord in the Scriptures.
It is not Mary that Roman Catholics worship with latria, but a grotesque monstrosity that shares her name. The “Mary” upon whom Roman Catholics heap such titles as Eternal Mother, Incarnation of the Holy Spirit, Mercy Itself, Infinite Sovereign Queen of the Universe through whom the Lord created all things and to whose commands the Lord Himself must bow in submission, upon whom the Trinity of God depends, whose fiat at the Annunciation makes God’s at the creation of the universe pale in comparison, who holds eternity in her hands, and by whose will the universe continues to exist, is not the Mary of the Bible. To conclude anything else would be uncharitable to our sister in Christ, Mary the mother of Jesus.
And to our Roman Catholic readers who believe they can accept and continue to worship in Roman Catholicism while selectively rejecting the inherent Mariolatry—it is not possible. Your popes and saints insist that you bend the knee to a monstrosity that holds your eternity in “her” hands and can snatch you from the flames of hell. But neither the Mary of the bible, nor Rome’s repulsive caricature of her, can save you.
“Come out of her, My people.” (Revelation 18:4)
Tim, Another great article. Let me ask you a question. Do you think the forbidding of marriage by the Roman church directly against scripture is contributes(ed) for these men to have a love affair and panting for Mary, which has contributed to the twisted view. All these Popes have no wives and it seems like its a love dream or wanting? So the unnatural deal of one’s physical needs leads lead to a perverted view of Mary and scripture?
“Tim, Another great article. Let me ask you a question. Do you think the forbidding of marriage by the Roman church directly against scripture is contributes(ed) for these men to have a love affair and panting for Mary, which has contributed to the twisted view.”
Ha! Real horse —-, eh Tim?
Tim, this article can’t be refuted. You have laid out methodically how Catholics worship her as their savior. I was watching a show on EWTN the other night, the one by the older blond lady who talks constantly about Mary, she sole focus is on the growth of Mariolatry in the church. I don’t think we know how tied this is to the church’s appeasement of the women’s libbers in the church. ” We can just hear Helen Ready “I am woman watch me roar in numbers to big to ignore” I don’t want to get to deep with this. But I believe because of the throwing aside of the Word of God for centuries in the RC, where husbands were to answer their wife’s questions at home and wives were to be silent, women having the sinful desire to Lord over their husbands. All the Catholic men that I know don’t know scripture and their wives are into mysticism and the power of Mary.
Tim WORSHIP IDOLATRY! Mike Genron said something really important. Catholics trust everything but Christ alone the author and PERFECTER of our faith. Baptisms, Mary, sacraments, scapulars, saints, themselves and their works, penances, Priests, Popes, but not only in the blood of our savior and his finished work on the cross. He obtained salvation for us sand gave it to us thru faith in Him, and yet they reduce the sufficiency of the atonement for the fatal trail of the attainment. ” Come out from her my people” Repent and believe the gospel and be saved.
Tim,
I actually like the article! Oh, I don’t mean the negative spin you put on things, but I am happy to see the Fr. Most piece. I had never seen it before and appreciate getting to see it.
Can we talk about Fatima for a minute?
Tim, why do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? None of the Gospel writers were present. You weren’t present.
You believe it because of the transformed lives of the writers, their holiness and readiness to die for their witness, right?
Think of the Fatima kids. They were so young and un lettered. Yet they became such profound theologians and 2 of them died almost as martyrs. The 3rd one lived out a life of sanctity never wavering in her testimony.
As for the miracle itself, possibly/probably a mixture of natural and supernatural causes, is as believable as that of Josua making the sun stand still.
As for the fruits of Fatima, we have the countless transformed lives. We also have the defeat of communism as a fruit of Fatima. Stalin had described Lisbon as the most atheistic capitol in Europe. If it had gone red, Franco would not have save Spain and France would have fallen too. All of Europe was saved by Fatima.
We have the extraordinary account of how JPII was saved from the assassins bullet. ( You saw the video I sent Walt )
Of course, as it is private revelation, no Catholic is required to believe in Fatima. Still, I think it strange that you claim to believe the Bible and public Revelation.
You believe Beelzebub casts out Belzebub dont you?.
Jim, as regards your comment,
No, I do not believe in the Resurrection because of the transformed lives of the writers, etc… I believe in the Resurrection because it is recorded in the Word of God. The resurrection is true, even though Peter denied Jesus and compromised the gospel, and Barnabas with him, and even though Paul and Barnabas had a split over the ministry of John Mark. The transformation in the lives of believers is evidence that they believe in the resurrection, but by itself it is not proof of the resurrection. All things must be tested by the Word of God, which is why I do not believe the message of the Fatima visionaries. They, and their apparition, propagated a false gospel that contradicts the Word of God. They and it should be rejected on that account.
Thanks for writing,
Tim
Tim,
I am embarrassed by Kevin’s groveling praise of you. It goes beyond mere admiration.
Please, don’t misunderstand. I think Kevin is fixated on you. I am not saying he is homosexual. Not 100% anyway. But I think it is on you to cool his jets before people get the wrong idea.
Children could happen to read this blog and get the impression Kevin is actually in love with you.
I have ridiculed him for his over the top praise of you many times but he has no shame.
Please delete his bootlicking infatuation/love letters.
Tim,
I am not really a licensed therapist but I would like to return the compliment to kevin for his psychological work up he gave us Catholics.
I think it stems from his lack of a good relationship with his father. Kevin says he was never taught any religion by his unbelieving father. He was probably aloof and uncaring. Kevin, probably a bed wetter and thumb sucker into his teens, was hungry for male love. His war hero father may have been a star in the eyes of some, but Kevin sought elsewhere for male love.
Later in life he turned to drugs. When he met John MacArthur, he saw the dad he never had. Mac told him to look to the cruel god of calvinism for a sense of specialness. The god of Calvinism says Kevin is elect. This makes him feel loved by the father he never had.
Kevin hates Mary. He hates women although he has boasted of his “good looks”. Not wanting to face the erotic fantasies that haunted him, he married. Unfulfilled in marriage, Kevin throws himself into hating his the quintessential woman, Mary.
I feel he finds you Tim, to be his father. He loves you with an unnatural love.
Let’s put our heads together to figure out how we can help Kevin get over his fixation with you.
Kevin,
You have boasted to me of your good looks.
Were you ever a male prostitute or “man whore” for women or men?
( Don’t be ashamed to let it out here. We all love you on this blog. )
King James of Scotland ( Walt! are you there ?) who authorized the KJV was himself a homosexual. And he hated his mother, Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. He allowed her to be executed by the vile Elizabeth of England. ( Mary was the true quenn of England but the Prots had seized the wealth of England and were afarid of having to give it back so they supported Henry VIII’s bastard as queen.
Here is a site that says Calvin himself may have had same sex attraction..https://sites.google.com/site/standfordrives/dcms-research/1534-conviction
There are several 12 step groups that come from a Christian perspective you can check out.
COURAGE is a Catholic ministry so you won’t want to go there. Exodus is Protestant so you may find them more welcoming.
Love you dude! Hope you get the help you are looking for.
Jim, I can assure you I have no fixation on anyone. I have praised Tim’s work and research here and I think his exegesis has been spot on. I don’t know Tim personally and may never meet Him. I can assure you I worship Jesus Christ solely. But if your worried about fixation Jim, maybe you need a case of ingrown eyeballs to see your fixation as well as millions of others on the Goddess Mary in the Roman Religion. The soccer goalie for Croatia in the world cup was wearing and Blessed virgin Mary undergarment while playing the other day. Something you would have given hearty approval to. Someone who hands out plastic rosaries shouldn’t be lecturing anyone on fixation. Just saying!
Kevin, you almost “pant after” Tim. men don’t pant after other men. Didn’t your war hero father ever tell you that ( if he was ever around ).
Boot lickers are always sack stabbers. You went from shining Nick’s boots to attacking him. ( I knew it was only a matter of time ).
You will turn on Tin too. A lover spurned always does.
You are icky.
Mary is a woman Bozo. Tim is a man.
Mary is “our, life, our sweetness and our hope”.
Tim is yours.
Leave Tim alone. He is married.
Jim, I love Mary she is my sister in the Lord I hope to meet in heaven some day. But I don’t worship her. And she is no more important to God than any other believer. She considered herself a sinner and and a handmaid of God. Maybe you should consider her the same way.
Maybe you should consider Tim a sinner. He is human. Quit worshiping him.
He can’t give you what you need. Move on.
Tim, it is important to mention as you did that Catholics don’t worship the Mary of the bible, but a graven image ( Roman caricature Mary) which they have put up as God. Just like they put up the graven” image of the beast” to be marched around and worshiped, in the bread.
Tim,
Some Catholic/Reformed dialogue, eh Tim. Great apologetics, too.
Real scholarly work being done on your site Tim.
As long as you invite the likes of kevin Falloni to comment on your blog, you are only going to have mud slinging.
Dump the troll! ( The you might rise to the level of the White Horse Inn ).
Tim, I think you should give Kevin Falloni equal billing as he is the dominant figure on this blog.
You are necessary just to keep the site up and to act as a backdrop with your occasional articles as a backdrop for his “gospel preaching”.
You are like the straight man or pretend interviewer who feeds the the popular comic the lines for him to cap off of.
This is the Falloni Blog. You can go away. You have been made redundant. He came as a guest and now sits in your chair.
Like a cancer, Falloni has been given an inch and took a mile.
He is more than an unctuous butt kisser. He has upstaged you.
Even if you tried to cool him down, he could turn on you as a turn coat. A guy on Jason’s blog didn’t get on board 100% with his extremism as Kevin retaliated against the traitor.
You have a tiger by the tail, don’t you?
Jim, said, “Mary is our life, our sweetness and our hope.” Worshiping Mary can very well be your ticket to hell. Why don’t you read what Tim wrote. He is warning Catholics to worship anyone other than Jesus Christ is fatal to one’s soul. There is a word for it in scripture. Idolatry. You ought to be worried about what he is writing than anything else.
Tim,
Why don’t you send Kevin one of your half eaten pancakes, sandwiches or burgers.
He can venerate it, sniff it, and nibble on until it is green with mold. He will cherish it forever. He adores you with, hmmmmm, hyperdulia.
C’monTim! Please tell me you don’t purr and preen yourself reading his oily praise.
Or do you bask in it? You have a following of one apple polishing brown noser. Surely you find him as putrid as I do.
Before you delete, the phrase actually refers to a false, silver plated copper coin bearing the likeness of the English Protestant king.
Instead of the the likeness being a profile, it was full fave on.
Since the nose stood out slightly, it was the first part of the coin to have the silver wear off revealing the brown and cheap real value of a penny.
Jim, Just like when Walt wrote you about regeneration and faith, you have no retort on the substance of the article, just character assassination. You have called me a troll, igor, and every name in the book and then you whine. This isn’t a Roman Catholic blog Jim. Its a blog proclaiming the gospel, biblical Christianity and outing sola eclessia. You don’t have the power like the Vatican to sensor truth here. You would have been one of the guys putting it to the Huguenots. Not here Jim, here you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Pope Jim Peter Gregory the ix can’t enforce the inquisition here. Truth will reign. You can’t sell you Marian indulgences here Pope Jim Peter Gregory ix. You can’t silence the William Tyndales here. So repent and believe the gospel Jim.
Tim,
http://blog.royalmint.com/old-coppernose-quantitative-easing-the-medieval-way/
why not send him an email and ask him to stop being such a “cable guy”.
” Gosh Tim, you are so great, I mean, wow, Tim, that last article was so fantastic, you have to be divinely inspired, ( pant pant ) Can I have your autograph? Please Tim, ( drool. slobber and drool ) I swear Tim, you light up my life. What are you going to write next Tim, huh Tim , huh Tim?
Latria, duila or hyperdulia. For a man who ridicules Catholic devotion, you sure seem to appreciate the groveling of a sychophantic brown noser.
I am starting to wonder about YOU Tim.
Jim,
You may impute to me whatever frame of mind you wish.
You are always welcome here.
Tim
Thanks for the warm welcome but I think I will be spending my blogging energies elsewhere. I have had a snoot full of the Falloni brand of Gospel preaching.
Email me when you have dumped him.
Jim, Let me explain something to you so you will have no “fog” in your mind. My support for Tim and his ministry has nothing to do with a fixation. It has everything to do with the fact he is one of the few Reformed who are willing to confront Roman error with the truth of Scripture. Most of what goes on on Jason’s blog is allot of butt kissing and acquiescing by Reformed to guys like Jonathan who think the book of John is a metaphysical essay. Tim is taking on directly and exposing the fallibility of sola Roman eclessia. Any Catholic lurker would do well to look at the evidence Tim provides from extensive quoting of Roman Catholic sources compared to the Word of God. He is tearing down the walls of the Roman lie one by one, IMHO. And as he is dismantling this false Christianity doctrine by doctrine, ( Mary, worship of the Roman Eucharist, the Apostasy, the antichrist, removing Jesus, etc) he is laying barren again for truth seekers why one should turn to the Word of God for eternal life by faith alone in Christ alone. And I can’t wait for justification and Romans 4, because he will open the hole in that Roman church heresy too. I can’t wait to hear Nick explain how the word justify means make righteous, or change in moral character. “It is God who justifies” who can bring a charge against God’s elect”. You jim or Nick. And I can’t wait to hear how “not that of yourselves” and not of works” really is code for “of your grace enabled works” and” partially of yourselves.” My encouragement for my brother here Jim is about the war of tearing down strongholds and forces and freeing the people of Roman Catholicism from Satan’s lie that you can save yourself with God’s help. ” If its by works it is no longer by grace” Repent of a life of works to merit grace thru sacramental efficacy and believe in Jesus Christ who is “the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe” K
Well yeah Jim, Kev is a bit of a fanboy, but as he says:
The soccer goalie for Croatia in the world cup was wearing and Blessed virgin Mary undergarment while playing the other day. Something you would have given hearty approval to. Someone who hands out plastic rosaries shouldn’t be lecturing anyone on fixation.
No kidding.
Bob,
We have kevin’s word for this. I think he is confusing catholics with Mormons. We Catholics don’t have blessed undergarments.
No kidding.
Jim,
Think plastic rosaries.
And Rome and Mormonism both add something to Sola Scriptura; Tradition/Apocrypha and Book of Mormon/Peral of Great Price.
The similarities are there in principle.
cheers
Jim, I am an avid Soccer fan. I watched the Brazil Croatia match the other day. They said the Croatian Goalie was a very Religious man and wears a The blessed Mary undershirt under his Jersey. You make a good point about the Mormonism undergarments. In fact if you think about it Mormonism is very much a recapitulation of Roman Catholicism. I had a friend who I thought I had led to Christ and he ran back to the RC. But he made an astute statement once. He said Mormonism reminded him of Roman Catholicism. Added revelation. Reducing Christ to something less than who He is and what he accomplished. And a system based on works in some way. Mormons are like Catholics, they don’t believe that death is the wages of sin. Rom. 6:23. Therefore becoming divine is more important than redemption. Thats why Rome still has Christ on the altar and the cross as an eternal victim. They won’t let Him off. He didn’t accomplish anything for them because they weren’t dead in their sins without hope. But we know God nailed his wrath and our sins to the cross. When you know you are dead in sins and unable to obey the law perfectly you run to the cross, the one who did not let the cup of wrath pass Him by but accepted God’s punishment and abandonment for our sins. ” He was delivered up for our transgressions and raised for our justification.” He was crushed for our iniquities and by His stripes we are healed. Not given medicine but healed. After obtaining redemption He sat down on at the right hand of God. In Rome Christ’s one time act accomplished nothing because they have to re break His body over and over and over and over and over and over and over like the OT sacrifices never saving anyone. Our Lord was raised in power and declared son of God. “For if he was not raised our faith is useless and we are still in our sins.” Paul gives us the eschatological reality, He has been raised and we are no longer in our sins. Catholics let him off the cross and repent of your abominable mass. Believe on Him for salvation where he in heaven making intercession for the saints. I”t is God who justifies, who can bring a charge against God’s elect.”
Eric W, I see you are back on Jason’s blog. I read your post and thought it was excellent. If your peeking in here, miss you bro and hope you and your family are well.
Kevin,
Blessings to you and your family. We are doing well. I just wanted to visit and say hello.
Eric W, Glad you posted. Really miss your insight, hope you will come back soon. K
Tim, There is an incredible article by Nicholas T. Batzig called the ” The justification of imputation” Have you read it? Thx kevin
Kevin, I have not read it, but I’ll be sure to check it out. Thanks for the heads up.
Tim
Tim, It has become evident to me that Catholics are baptized into a church and taught that original sin is washed away, they are born again, it is a profession of faith, and now they are neutral or good. That they have the capacity to fulfill the ” New Law”,as if loving your neighbor and God with all your heart were an easy task, and they can participate in the propitiation of their own sins. IOW Tim I’m asking you from a faulty view of one’s complete depravity, and dead in sin, and a faulty view that death is caused by sin, it will be difficult to accept the clear teaching of psub. Also they don’t understand the Law requires perfect obedience Gal.3:10. IOW would these understandings be necessary in the exposing of the false axiom of Sola Eclessia of the Roman church? Thx Kevin P.S. I hope what i’m asking makes sense. I am a firm believer that we have to show people how lost they are before they can understand the cross properly and their complete distrust of themselves and trust in Christ alone. Although salvation is all a work of God.
Tim said ‘ it is not Mary that Roman Catholics worship with Latria but a grotesque monstrosity that bears her name.” All this from “the Church that Jesus personally built” we are constantly told, the self proclaimed infallible Magisterium. And the gullible Catholics check their brain at the door and accept all of it hook line and sinker. Blindly praying to the Mother of Jesus and bowing to a piece of bread telling us she is Christ and it is Christ. Roman Catholicism is a front for the kingdom of Satan, the exact antithesis of Christianity. Satan makes good look evil and evil look good. The Emperor in his new clothes. Catholics don’t want the gospel, they want something more, they want to be God. Genesis 3 the real sin of man Idolatry. Isaiah 45:22 ” Turn to Me and be saved all the ends of the earth; For i am God and there is no other” Catholics turn fro your idols, turn to the Gospel and be saved.” Faith alone in Christ alone = eternal life. ” No man will be justified by observing the Law” ” For Christ is the end of the Law to all those who believe”
Tim,
I just gave a shout out to you from Jason’s blog. You really ought to go over and enjoy the repartee. All the old gang is back blogging. You can leave Bozo to mind the store. If any new people log on , he can say”death wafer” or “panting after Mary” or some other pin headed statement to them.
The best part of Jason’s blog is, of course, no Bozo the Clown. He would love to be there but, now that I have a vast record of his slurs to show Mateo, Nick and Jonathan, he will have to stay here and fawn over your masterpieces.
I see Eric just hi-fived Bozo. I really think he should stay here with you guys. But there is nothing here but Bozo and Bozo and more Bozo. Even he would get sick of it here.
Jim, Thats all you got, throwing mud. You ought to know about Bozo, because your a clown.
Jim, If your still lurking. Here is the thing. The church isn’t the goods, the church delivers the goods. And the goods is the gospel. The church can only preach the gospel which thru the power of the Holy Spirit thru faith ( not because of) brings a man in union with the Christ whose righteousness becomes ours and justifies us because it is perfect. He payed the penalty for our Law breaking by fulfilling the righteous requirements of the Law and condemning sin in the flesh. Listen to Colossians 2:13-14 ” When you were dead is your transgressions, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL our transgressions. having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile against us; He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” Our sins and God’s wrath were nailed to the cross. Christ became sin and we became the “righteousness of God” in Him. God made the iniquity of us all to fall on Him and we were justified.” The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Our righteousness isn’t derived from His, it is His righteousness. In Philippians 3:9, Paul puts all his righteousness in one column that s derived from the Law, and the “righteousness that comes from God thru faith “in Him” in the other column. Thats why the scripture says we are justified now, we are saved and justified by His blood and thru faith alone. It never says we are counted just because of faith but “by” or “through’ faith. The Lord’s supper is a God’s gift and confirmation of God’s grace, not a sacrifice and a payment on your part to increase grace and justice. Psalm 31 says by His righteousness we are justified, not ours. And 1 Corinthians 1:30 says by His doing we are in Christ who became to us ( past tense) wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” And of course Jeremiah 23 says ” His name shall be called : the Lord is our righteous” We are not to trust in our works or our righteousness in any way. Galatians 2:16 is clear no man shall be justified by observing the Law, but thru faith in Christ. Titus 3:5 says “not by righteous deeds” but by His mercy we are saved. John arguably the most important gospel, John doesn’t even mention the Lord’s supper in his gospel, but says to as many as receive Him and believe on His name He has given the right to be called children of God. The Philippians jailer asked What must I do to be saved? Paul did not tell him go down the street and start a doing a sacramental process for your life and then in the end we’ll see how you did. He said” believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” The Roman Catholic has been taught that with the help of sanctifying grace they are to earn their salvation thru sacraments and by their works. They are taught that grace is given by God in response to an action or ability. They are on a treadmill of works to perfect inherent righteousness. But the Gospel says exactly the opposite, that God justifies the ungodly by faith, apart from works, by not counting their sins against them, and by counting ( imputing) Christ’s righteousness to our account. 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:19. Listen what the Apostle says ” For the righteous shall live by faith” He calls us righteous and simply says live by faith. Faith is not some initial mental assent to knowledge of the church in the bible ( as proposed in the RC system) it is described as a life of trusting Christ for one’s salvation. “Hearing by faith” is opposed to works in justification. Romans 11:6 ” For if it is by grace, it is no longer by works, or grace is no longer grace.” Roman Catholics repent of your oppressive system of attaining your salvation by your works, and a sacramental system of earning increase in grace and justice, which provides you no assurance and will only merit hell for you, and believe the Gospel which says that God counts just those who trust in Christ alone for their salvation, and receive the assurance of the Gospel that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead ” YOU WILL BE SAVED” Revelations 18:4 ” come out from her my people” and be saved. The true church of Christ is awaiting you where there is now no more condemnation for those in Christ, only adoption and inheritance which Peters says is of an incorruptible seed that will NEVER fade away. Christ reconciled us by his blood. He didn’t put us in a suspended sate of reconciliation based on if we can get there and a final justification based on the our inherent righteousness. He saved us and redeemed us and gave us the free gift of eternal life thru faith alone in His son.
Tim, it becomes ever more apparent that Roman Catholicism is fictitious divine worship. None of this stuff has any scriptural basis. Condign merit, congruous merit, hyperdullia, dullia, lattria, infused substance, caricature and worship of Mary, synergistic sacramental system of efficacy, relics, indulgences, Purgatory, Celibacy, sacrifice of the mass, Popes, cardinals, nuns, pilgrimages, bleeding Eucharists, salvation by one’s own works, and on and on. Fictitious divine worship. Roman Catholicism isn’t a different denomination, its a different religion. The Reformers came to disassemble the ecclesiastical machinery that was mostly human in origin and content. Spurgeon said they came to tear down the compost pile. Hopefully we can continue to do the same thing by perching the simple gospel.
Kevin,
I agree with you. Roman Catholicism is not a Christian denomination, and some of our confessions say as much. There was no fuzz on this years ago, but as time has moved on, so has the Evangelical resistance of Rome. It is sad to see so many embracing Antichrist in order to bring about the “unity of the Church.” Just as when Abraham tried to bring about God’s promises by the flesh, the result is Ishmael. It will be the same with anyone who runs to Rome in order to “help” God answer Jesus’ prayer for unity.
The truth is, Jesus’ prayer has always been answered in the unity of the faith of His people. That unity does not originate in us but in Him.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, you said:
“King James of Scotland ( Walt! are you there ?) who authorized the KJV was himself a homosexual. And he hated his mother, Catholic Mary Queen of Scots.”
I’m back. I had to speak at the World Bank conference this week in Jakarta Indonesia, and was in Abu Dhabi the week before. It was a bit of a busy schedule, but after 25 hours of flight/travel time I’m back home a few hours ago. It will take me some time to catch up, but I would encourage you not to be so focused on Calvin and his alleged arrest. You may find it more profitable to read his commentaries on the Scriptures.
Welcome back, Walt. I’ve made the Jakarta flight, too, and it is definitely a long haul. I am glad your travels were safe, and I hope your speaking engagements went well.
Tim
Tim,
I had a return flight via Malaysia, Amsterdam and Detroit connections before getting home with the last flight. Whew, it was among the longest I’ve ever had in traveling more than 45 countries. It is nice to be back home… Yes, the meetings were great, and I think we got a few more believers on the same page as ours from the Muslim part of the world. It was my first time to Jakarta, but I can really say how impressed I am with the people. They are so wonderful and amazing how they treated us foreigners. I’m sure there are exceptions, but generally amazingly wonderful people I met everywhere.
Walt, Glad you had safe travels. welcome back brother. K
Hence we see that the reformed Protestant religion is the only true religion that is in the world, because it is built upon the infallible truth and veracity of God. We have reason to be thankful to God, that it is not built upon such sandy foundations as human unwritten traditions, or any human testimony whatsoever. It is built upon the God of truth, and not upon fallible men. We admit the testimony of the church as an help to our faith, but not the ground and foundation of it. The precious truths which we believe, we receive them not upon the testimony of the God of truth that cannot lie. But the Popish religion hath no sure foundation. The faith of Papists is built upon the testimony of the churches, Popes, or councils, but upon the testimony of the God of truth that cannot lie. But the Popish religion hath no sure foundation. The faith of Papists is built upon the testimony of men; so that their religion hath no more certainty in it, than these men have of infallibility.
Thomas Boston, An illustration of the doctrines of the Christian religion, with respect to faith and practice, upon the plan of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism; comprehending a complete body of divinity , ed. Samuel McMillan (2 vols, Aberdeen, 1848), i, 129.
Walt, When Tim posted the statement on justification made by Clement of Rome in the first century reenforcing Paul, juxtaposed against the statement by a Patristic father in the late 4th century saying we should trust in our works after grace for salvation, it crystalized even more for me, along with the other evidence he has presented, that the Roman church was the apostate. It had clearly, thru its unbiblical doctrines, like justification of grace plus works, and Bishops not being allowed to Marry etc. showed a distinct turn. The true church has always known this and separated itself from this system. Yet to today Reformed and Evangelicals are just throwing their arms around these Roman errors as if they are another denomination. It is a different Religion and if you noticed Tim address it this way and so do I. We must not shy away from presenting the truth which will offend. But Rome has offended the truth enough, and the Pope and his religion will not permit men to be saved.
Tim, exactly, according to Paul in Galatians the gospel was the one thing worth protecting and doing everything to preserve its truth. He wrote the book of Galatians to refute those who were trying to undermining the doctrine of justification by faith, the gospel, and said anyone including himself if they preached another gospel ( adding works to hearing by faith to be justified) should be anathema. The church is unified in the gospel. Catholics always say ya but you don’t belong to the visible church, and I say come with me on sunday and I’ll let you touch my visible church. Rome makes a giant error thinking the Church has control of man’s conscience when it is God alone who has control of man’s conscience. The Spirit brings the Word to the heart, not the church. The church can only witness the gospel, but it is the Spirit who delivers all of Christ’s benefits to us. But Tim, Rome is a clever system, having their people roped in by telling them their is no salvation outside their church and receiving the death wafer. They are baptized into a system which cannot save them. You are right that it wasn’t so fuzzy years ago. But today is more subtle. We must stay committed to the truth.
Eric W, made this point on Jason’s site which cannot be underestimated. John 3:8″ The wind blows were it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where its going, so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” This is a direct statement to any church who magically thinks their scoundrel can put magic water on someone and poof produce faith and infused habits. God says no, I will put my Spirit in you where and how I want. We receive the Spirit of CHRIST. It is CHRIST that is offered not am infused philosophical soul substance, habit, but the Spirit of christ thru faith.
Tim, have you seen this?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/presbyterian-church-leaders-declare-gay-marriage-christian-n136256
Are you familiar with this Presbyterian denomination?
Walt,
I just heard about this vote over the weekend. I am not very familiar with the PC-USA, and although there was some twitter activity when one reporter accidentally identified it as the PCA. The PCA general assembly took place the same week, which is why there was some confusion.
Thanks,
Tim
Walt, the true church will always stand for truth because the gates of hell won’t prevail against it. And as Tim says the unity of the church is the unity of faith of His people, the unity around the Word, the gospel. This Presbyterian church as any evangelical, arminian etc. that stands against God’s truth is apostates themselves. Those who possesses the gospel will always stand behind JBFA and upholding the Law of God. If some church is willing to marry homosexuals, it does not have the truth. My wife was talking to a Pastor of a big conservative evangelical church in the Phoenix area the other day. He says the biggest sin that is pervading the church today that they have to deal with is homosexuality. John MacArthur does an amazing message titled ” When God abandons a nation” and in it he describes what the conditions are when God turns people over to their sin. Romans 1, it always involves a sexual revolution and then a homosexual revolution. I think we have seen the sexual revolution of the sixties and now they are parading their homosexuality sin young in the street just like Sodom and Gomorra right before God destroyed them.
Kevin,
You said:
“Walt, the true church will always stand for truth because the gates of hell won’t prevail against it. And as Tim says the unity of the church is the unity of faith of His people, the unity around the Word, the gospel. ”
I would suggest that the unity of the true church is more than the unity of faith and the gospel.
The reformers taught that true unity was an obedience to the law and testimony. Unity comes from covenanting as one true church and upholding Terms of Communion that detail out unity and uniformity in the doctrines and teachings of Scripture. It is an independent error to claim unity in faith and the gospel is sufficient to mark the true church in my opinion.
If we are to only mark the true church by faith and the gospel, I fear that we will end up in a growing sectarian culture of evangelicals who claim to be “one with Christ” but will never be able to demonstrate their true unity. They will certainly show a pretended unity in faith and the gospel, but true unity comes from covenanting as one voice through the law and our testimony as a true church…which is ONE in history.
Tim is trying to show us where this true church split in history during the first 400 years, and prophetically where we are going from here, but unity is so much more.
Walt said ” If we are only to mark the true church by faith and the gospel I fear that we will end upon a growing sectarian culture of evangelicals who claim to be one with Christ but will never be able to demonstrate their true unity.” If I’m not mistaken I said the true church preaches the gospel and the Law rightly. Calvin said anywhere the word is preached rightly and the sacraments are administered rightly there be the church. Do you agree with this? You sound a little Catholic still to claim there is no unity in the Evangelical church. I think the church is made up of many denominations who are committed to preaching the word and sacrament who are in unity. I don’t buy the 20000 different sects thing Catholics always say. IMHO the cultural sectarianism of the Evangelical church is a result a failure to preach the great doctrines of the Reformation to its people. The ignorance of the Evangelical church is paramount and is a direct result of the leadership not perching the gospel and Law to their people. When you say unity is so much more, do you mean to say all Christians will be under the tent of Scottish Reformed churches?
Kevin,
I believe in Presbyterian form of church government, so thereby, I believe in a national church similar to the Church of Scotland per country. I believe in a church court system administered by these national church that includes local church court sessions, regional court prebysteries, regional or national synods and a national general assembly that acts with authority. All of these courts, court officers, churches owe their allegiance to Jesus Christ as the sole head of the church, and no court (in any of the four divisions) or church body has any authority to do anything outside of the revealed will of God in the Scriptures. If any court or church body decides to act outside of Scripture they are seeking to overturn Scripture, and take upon their role a higher authority than Scripture itself. At this point, they seek to become a faithful church of Christ and backslide from the true unity taught in Scripture as followers of Christ being one in doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of government.
I agree with the RCC that there are more than 20,000 denominations in the so called Christian church, and that some of these have degenerated to become synagogues of Satan. I see many of these synagogues of Satan in the public eye today that perform Satanic signs, wonders, healings and miracles in the name of Christ…which are actually Satanic.
In answer to your question if the true church is visible by means of preaching the gospel rightly, and administering the ordinances rightly, I would say “yes” and “no”. Yes, if a church in Iran or some non-convenanted nation has believers, the true invisible church is more visible as perhaps they worship in their homes under threat of persecution, or in Sudan where even public testimony of the gospel can get you a death sentence. There are God’s elect there and the true preaching of the gospel, and perhaps ordinances are being offered in secret.
In covenanted nations like Scotland, England, Ireland, USA, Australia, Canada, etc. where the attainments reached during the second reformation are ignored, and claims are made that there is true and faithful churches are marked by only the gospel and ordinances rightly taught, I would not agree. I think there is need for far more covenanted obligations to be followed as we see with both Israel and Judah during times of their reformations.
Walt, Where do you see a national church in Scripture? Thanks And would I be right by assuming you believe in a model like the RC only guided by correct doctrine and to the obedience to the Law and the Testimony. Incidentally Jesus said my kingdom isn’t of this world. As I look at the NT church i don’t see any evidence of a a National church. I see a church in Philippi, Corinth, Rome etc. Rome has there 20000 sects. The Jesuits aren’t even trinitarian, some being Buddhists. There is a plethora of doctrinal diversity in Rome even though they claim home office. Bear with me as I’m trying to understand your position and support for it. Thanks Kevin.
Kevin, here is a good simple place to start to read. It is the very basic primer on the subject of biblical church government.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_standards/index.html?mainframe=/documents/wcf_standards/p395-form_presby_gov.html
Another document that is very good to read, but takes a bit of time and is not reprinted yet (I’ve got 90% of it retyped) is the Grand Debate that compares independent church government with presbyterian church government.
No. The RCC church government is not in any way a hopeful model of the reformers who used Scripture alone to define a presbyterial form of church government.
I assume you adhere to the independent and congregational form of church government, and that anything beyond the local congregation is not biblical, but I would encourage you to read at least the primer referenced above.
If you want more details, here is a list of references to study.
http://www.truecovenanter.com/kirkgovt/index.htm
Presbyterian Church Government:
An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland. By George Gillespie.
The First and Second Books of Discipline: David Calderwood’s Edition of 1621.
Terms of Communion: The Authority of the Books of Discipline within the R.P. Churches. By J.B. Johnston.
The Ministerial Office:
The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. A Sermon by John Fairley.
Ordination Sermon: We are Labourers together with God. By Thomas Nairn
The Faithful & Wise Servant; or The Authority, Character, & Work of a Gospel Minister, in the Church of Christ, opened up. By John M’Millan II.
The Ministry a Perpetual Ordinance of Christ. Chapter 1 from George Gillespie’s Miscellany Questions.
Concerning the Right of Prophesying. Chapter 8 from Robert Baillie’s Dissuasive from Errours.
A Humble Acknowledgment of the Sins of the Ministry of Scotland. By James Guthrie.
A Sermon on 1 Timothy 3:1-4, concerning the qualifications for Shepherds in the Church, wherein is discovered the difference between the Popish Clergy with their wicked Hierarchy, and the true Church of Jesus Christ with the faithful ministers thereof. By John Calvin.
Ministerial Qualifications, from the Reformed Presbyterian, 1854.
A Sermon on How Christ is the True Shepherd, from John 10.11-16: Distinguishes the characteristics of good pastors with their helpful preaching, from bad pastors and their unsuitable preaching. By Martin Luther.
On the Calling of Ecclesiastical Officers:
Of the Election of Pastors with the Congregation’s Consent. Chapter 2 excerpted from George Gillespie’s Miscellany Questions.
Concerning a Calling to the Ministry, and Clearness therein. Excerpted from James Durham’s Lectures on Revelation.
Whether Ordination be essential to the calling of a Minister. Chapter 3 excerpted from George Gillespie’s Miscellany Questions.
Objections against the necessity of Ordination answered. Chapter 4 excerpted from George Gillespie’s Miscellany Questions.
An Ordinance of Parliament for the Ordination of Ministers pro Tempore, according to the Directory for Ordination, 1644.
Ruling Elders:
A Treatise of Ruling Elders and Deacons. By James Guthrie.
The Form and Order of the Admission of Elders, as done by Mr. James Renwick.
The Duties of Ruling Elders and the People over whom they are Appointed Overseers. By Thomas Boston.
An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland: Part 1: Concerning Ruling Elders. By George Gillespie.
Deacons:
A Treatise of Ruling Elders and Deacons. By James Guthrie.
Terms of Communion: A Defence of the Deacon’s Office & Responsibilities. By J.B. Johnston.
The Marks of the True Catholic Church:
The Marks of the True Catholic Church: An Answer to a Jesuit. By John Knox.
Marks of the True Church. From The Original Covenanter.
Ecclesiastical Assemblies:
The Westminster Assembly. From The Original Covenanter.
The Nature & Benefits of Church Membership:
Church Membership. From The Contending Witness
Biblical Principles of Ecclesiastical Dissent & Separation:
The Informatory Vindication of the True Presbyterian Church of Scotland: Head 4
Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting: A Summary Article from The Contending Witness
The Reasons of Mr. Alexander Craighead’s receding from the present Judicatures of this Church, (early PCUSA,) together with its Constitution, 1743.
A Short Account of Mr. Thomas Nairn, Minister of the Gospel in Linktoun… his Secession from the Associate Presbytery; with the Grounds and Reasons, 1743.
Occasional Hearing from The Reformed Presbyterian, 1839.
The Duty of Separation by John McAuley from The Original Covenanter
Queries and Admonitions used in the Private Social Profession of Faith of Christian Children. From Memoirs of the Life of John Howie.
Ecclesiastical Association & Terms of Communion:
A Modest Reply to a Pamphlet, entitled A Letter from a Friend to Mr. John McMillan, 1710. (Early Defence of R.P. Principles & Terms of Communion.)
The Constitution of the Associate-Reformed Synod in America… Testified Against, by the Reformed Presbytery of Scotland.
The Necessity of Testifying Against the U.S. Government as a Ground of Ecclesiastical Fellowship for the R.P. Churches, from the Minutes of the R.P. Church of Ireland.
Terms of Communion From The Contending Witness.
Introduction & Appendix to the Auchensaugh Renovation by Thomas Henderson.
Remarks on a Letter… by Adam Brown, (Concerning the Auchensaugh Renovation) by John Dow.
Against Anti-Scriptural forms of Church Government:
The Bishop’s Doom. A Sermon by Alexander Henderson on the occasion of the Excommunication of several bishops from the Church of Scotland.
From whence essentially is the calling of a Pastor? Against Independency; Excerpted from Samuel Rutherford’s Peaceable Plea for Paul’s Presbytery.
Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope. Against the Papacy and the Tyranny of the Roman Heirarchy; Compiled by the Lutheran Theologians Assembled at Smalcald, in the Year 1537.
Whether the power of Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction belongs to the People or to the Presbytery. Chapter 9 from Robert Baillie’s Dissuasive from Errours.
A Letter from the Synod of Zeeland expressing their desire for uniformity in Kirk-Government in Scotland, England, & Ireland, and their joy in the overthrow of the intolerable tyranny of Episcopal government, 1643.
Against Ecclesiastical Tyranny:
A Protestation, Declinature, & Appeal, given to the Commission of the General Assembly, 1708, by John McMillan & John McNeil.
A Vindication of the Ministerial Mission & Authority of John McMillan I by John McMillan II.
The Vindication of Mr. James Gilchrist, Minister of the Gospel at Dunscore, by A Dissenting Presbytery of the Church of Scotland.
Walt, thanks, I will look in to this thoroughly. Appreciate you taking time to provide this information.
Kevin,
Please watch this video and put in perspective how tiny the true church is, and how broad is the way to hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weEWl52wevI
The first and second reformation was a bright light and a time of refreshing in the wilderness.
Tim is an expert as you can see on the early church fathers, and is endeavoring to map out the faithful from the unfaithful church in history. He is doing an incredible job, but notice how this blog has so few compared to what the Pope might say, or what these mega church ministers might say. It is true often that so few want to learn these hard things, and even fewer want to hear the truth. They want what the video proves above. They want to be told how good they are and they want to be led to spiritual darkness by the millions and billions.
The proof is eye popping in the video, and when you see the billion that follow the RCC and her teachings.
I recommend you get yourself into the teachings during the second reformation doctrines. If you take the same view as Jim does here on the Scottish presbyterians and covenanters, I fear you will mix modern evangelical, and “church father” doctrines…missing the REAL MEAT that is taught to the Christian world coming out of the first and second reformations.
In all due respect to the writings of the early church, and those who preach in our generation that is the “waterflood” of false doctrine, the great reformers are unmatched in history.
Study and learn from there ministries and writings and sermons and teaching…it is there you will find the gospel and the law that you think is floating around our generation.
Kevin,
The core issue you will want to study, if you have time, is A Refutation of Religious Pluralism (Absurdity & Perfidy of All Toleration).
It has been retyped by a member of our church and is read unto an MP3 audio by another person of our church. This book was written by John Brown of
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=swrb&keyword=Refutation+of+Pluralism&keyworddesc=Refutation+of+Pluralism
“Gospel Covenant Publications has been founded with the specific purpose of bringing you timeless Christian literature that is at the same time both evangelical and reformed. It is our assumption that only in the writings of true biblical Protestantism and of the Covenanted Reformation will we find a truly faithful understanding of the good news of Jesus Christ.
Please visit our website at http://www.gcpublications.com for our products and free literature.”
A Refutation of Religious Pluralism
John Brown of Haddington (1780)
Mr. John Brown’s manifesto shatters the glass walls that have been erected (not only by political leaders, but also by religious leaders) around the ‘sacred’ doctrine of religious pluralism (or religious toleration) within the political realm.
Mr. Brown argues that for a nation to tolerate gross heresy and blasphemy (and even false religions in their entirety) is not to take a neutral position with regard to religion, but is rather to protect and promote false religion (contrary to God and His Moral Law, which perpetually bind all people in the world to its obedience – including political leaders).For God is not morally neutral and does not grant a so-called ‘religious liberty’ in the civil realm to violate His Moral Law (as summarized in the Ten Commandments). For that which is truly a moral wrong can never be a civil right.
In the two Letters found in this volume are summarized Biblical, historical, and logical arguments against the toleration of gross heresy and blasphemy in the constitutions and practices of nations (and especially those nations that are engaged by way of lawful National Covenants to God). In addition, Mr. Brown has cited numerous objections against the magistrate’s God-ordained duty to legally and morally prevent religious toleration and pluralism within a nation, and has provided answers to the objections that manifest a consistent Scriptural reasoning revealing the fantasy of ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious pluralism’ in the civil realm.
If Mr. Brown had written his book in the United States (rather than in Scotland), an appropriate title might have been, The Religious Pluralism Granted In The First Amendment Is Not Granted In The First Commandment.
Dear reader, be ready to have your political worldview shaken and turned right-side-up!
Walt, Thanks, and i can assure you I whole heartily agree the what the Reformers are absolutely unmatched in History. In fact MacArthur once told me that the Scottish Reformers were his favorite readings. I have and will continue to study those Reformers and grow in knowledge, and maybe you don’t understand me I think none of this knowledge is being taught or floated around today, I’m in agreement with you . Evangelicalism has abandoned the Reformers and their teaching. But I still believe where the Gospel is, there is the church.
Walt, Thanks for all the references. I have allot of study ahead of me.
Walt. i listened to the first tape. Very interesting. I would have to say I agree the scriptures teach that God has created Government as His restrainer and His arm of jurisdiction over His glorious Law to the people and the civil protection and upholding of the Christian Religion. I also believe that the move toward religious tolerance and acceptance and the societal secular tolerance stems historically from the abuses by governments that were pagan and sinful and their influence on the Church and the Church’s use of civil power for bad, namely Rome. Because even though God created government as His arm, governments are run by sinful men. This is MacArthur’s argument, that Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world, and every time we have had state religion’s in History or the mixing of the church with states it has led to corruption and persecution of people. His contention is Christ called us to preach the Gospel and submit to government, whatever it is. We aren’t called to Christianize the government, because Government is run by corrupt sinful men. God however intended for government to function as John Brown had rightfully pointed out from Scripture. It seems from what i heard Walt that with the passing of time men descanted even in Scotland from God’s perfect setup in Covenanting thru civil Magistrates. I hope I said that right. Love to hear your response, and I will finish all the material you gave me. I find next to Scripture and writings of the Reformers I really need nothing else.
Kevin,
You wrote:
“His contention is Christ called us to preach the Gospel and submit to government, whatever it is. We aren’t called to Christianize the government, because Government is run by corrupt sinful men.”
I would recommend you listen to that first audio one more time. There is a lot of information there that might be better understood by buying the book as well.
What is clear is that the civil magistrate is obligated to upload both tables of the law, including the first four commandments. Thus, the magistrate is to insure that the one true God of the Bible is defended by the magistrate.
However, the civil magistrate cannot force men to become Christian, nor to accept Jesus Christ, nor force them to join any church as was common with Rome during the time of inquisition and the killing times in Scotland through Erastianism.
Listen again to point #10 on the audio starting at 0.55 to understand what I make mention above.
MacArthur is in error if he teaches that man is to submit to unlawful and tyrannical civil magistrates. This view was the total opposite belief of Covenanters, and they even went so far as to proclaim they had a right of self defense with arms when the tyrannical and unlawful civil magistrate under Cromwell and Charles II issued warrant to capture, murder and destroy all ministers, children, parents who swore to the Solemn League and Covenant that refused to denounce it. While MacArthur would submit to this tyranny, as many ministers did to protect their lives and livelihood by taking money offered them to recant across the 3 kingdoms, the true Covenanters. They did not protest the king’s right to rule, only his right to rule as a tyrant violating the laws of God. Even the king is subject to the laws of God.
In summary, the Christian has a duty to obligation to follow lawful civil government, but when the government becomes tyrannical and unlawful promoting evil and wickedness, they can resist for conscience sake, but can also submit for wrath’s sake to avoid certain death and preserve their life. Some ministers and common people will choose to resist for conscience sake holding Scripture above their lives, and others will submit for wrath’s sake to preserve their lives. Which is better I do not render a judgment, but can say that for each Christian family it is their choice. For me personally, I have my limits as to how far I could be pushed for wrath’s sake before I would follow the 18,000+ Covenanters who refused to take bribes and recant their SLC signature, and rather choose death.
They stood against the Roman Catholic funded and supported Charles II tyranny, and chose liberty rather than tyranny.
Walt Romans 13:1 ” Let everyone be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” It is clear here Walt that we are to subject ourselves to the government because it is God who is sovereignly working, for there is no authority except from God. Jesus was in subjected himself to authority. Paul says in verse 2 : “therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves” These are strong words Walt, there are no qualifiers as to subjection to governing authority, we are to subject. In fact the next verses focuses on the individual behavior of a man ” for rulers are not a cause of of fear for good behavior.” IOW no matter what persecution we are under we are to behave rightly. He ends by saying it is necessary to be in subjection because of conscience sake. Now He goes on to say that rulers are servants of God. And lastly we are given the barometer. ” Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” God certainly has set up government as a restrainer on people and you are right civil magistrates are to uphold God’s law , but they are run by sinful men. The focus here is on our behavior not the government, and we have to balance the desire for godly civil magistrates with the command to subject ourselves to authority. I will continue to fully listen and understand these tapes. Thx brother. Hope your caught u on our jet lag. God bless
Kevin,
Read a few commentaries on Roman 13 and see what the literal sense interpretation (eg, intended meaning) of the verse means rather than the literal interpretation means.
I think there are some excellent exegetical interpretations on that verse that might surprise you.
Walt, Ok i will. I want to keep an open mind. Walt are you Post millennial? Thx K
yes, I am historicist post-mill, but am following Tim’s research in the area that is fascinating in the first 358 years, but I’m not sure where it can go from her considering the 1260, 1290 and 1335 years…so we will have to see if all of scripture is integrated as I have seen others do so well. Those three periods have tripped up many many historicist post-mill authors. Let’s wait and see.
Thanks, Walt,
The 1290 and 1335 days are easily integrated. Although I must tell you: I do not believe Daniel 9 is messianic. That changes everything.
Tim
Walt, I think it is fascinating too. My wife asked the same question about where it can go from here considering the same amounts of years. Yes it will be exciting to see. Walt can you recommend a book on Post millennialism. K
Kevin, you wrote:
“Walt can you recommend a book on Post millennialism.”
Well, there are not many that are historicist post-mill.
One good study is Horae Apocalypticae by Elliot. Although he is not historicist post-mill, he is a historicist pre-mill. He is not a futurist like 99% of the evangelical church today, nor is he a preterist. He would be good for you to study as it gives you the “presuppositions” of all the major thought on eschatology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horae_Apocalypticae
The set is available on the puritan hard drive from swrb.
The two best books on the subject are:
Notes on the Apocalypse by David Steele
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14485/14485-h/14485-h.htm
Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation by Alexander M’Leod.
http://archive.org/stream/lecturesuponprin00mcle/lecturesuponprin00mcle_djvu.txt
If you read the last two, and work toward researching the first one you will be mostly in line with what is largely the best and most faithful commentaries/lectures on the subject.
If you want a modern day, and detailed version of the best exegetical study on the matter, I would download either the audio or print versions of these sermons here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=swrb&keyword=Sovereignty+Of+God+Ezra+Series&keyworddesc=Sovereignty+Of+God+Ezra+Series
If you want, I have in one document the entire “Ezra-Eschatology” series completed in word format so you can search for key words. I also have another series called “Israel’s Restoration” series in word that will allow you to search too.
You would have to get me your email address and I can send it too you by email. Both series are incredible and very detailed with Scripture proofs so you can understand the context of each proof text used.
They will not agree with where Tim is taking his series, but between this research and following Tim’s commentary you will be a far wiser student of Scripture than you are today.
I wrote in 2014 the following truths.
“The two best books on the subject are:
Notes on the Apocalypse by David Steele
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14485/14485-h/14485-h.htm
Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation by Alexander M’Leod.
http://archive.org/stream/lecturesuponprin00mcle/lecturesuponprin00mcle_djvu.txt
If you read the last two, and work toward researching the first one you will be mostly in line with what is largely the best and most faithful commentaries/lectures on the subject.
They will not agree with where Tim is taking his series, but between this research and following Tim’s commentary you will be a far wiser student of Scripture than you are today.”
It is the last sentence that will get you removed from this site. Beware!
Walt,
Since the Seventh Day Aventists and M’Leod both predicted, incorrectly, the end of the 2,300 “years,” Adventists placing it in 1844 and M’Leod placing it in 1896, and you despise the Adventists for their “time setting” and their false prophecies, on what basis do you commend to us M’Leod, an errant time setter and false prophet, while condemning the Adventists for their errant time-setting and false prophecy?
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Walt,
Douglas Douma has a comment about David Steele recently. I think Douma’s argument is a good warning.
https://douglasdouma.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/low-high-and-in-between-confessional-subscription-and-the-clark-van-til-controversy/
John,
Are you joking? You believe Tim Kauffmann is a true prophet. How can you be a true prophet when all your predictions are in error? You cannot.
Read David Steele and avoid Tim. David Steele would never silence his critics like Tim does on this block. All faithful ministers are open in the light. Tim operates in darkness which should be a warning to all of us.
John Macarthur used to say if you want to know what a man struggles with the most, listen to what he talks about all the time. Walt’s words and accusations proves he is the one who thinks he is a prophet, and a living magisterium. He comes here and tells us who is a prophey and who is not, who is light and who is darkness. And yet he is able to make those determinations and conclusions without ever proving his position. Walt, your actions show you are a fraud, unrepentant, lacking in knowledge and understanding, only able to make subjective proclamations of people’s characters, and utterly failing to ever disprove their work. And after acusing Tim of trying to be a prophet turn around and tell John that David Steele is one. You hypocrite, you don’t even say according to my study, but you condemn Tim for being a false prophet while simultaneously telling us who is the true prophet, and yet you can’t prove your case. Fraud
Hi Walt,
Thx for your reply.
I’m not sure where you thought I said “I believe Tim is a true prophet”.
The article I referred to above by Doug Douma was arguing for a Confessional Standard, especially the WCF. His argument was that we have the tendency to go beyond the standard with additions, or beneath the standard with subtractions. What people add on or subtract from the WCF is open to argument. But that is the point. It is only the WCF that is the agreed standard amongst Pressies. The rest is a matter of opinion. Asking people to go under or over the standard is schismatic i.e. A Presbyterian needs only to hold to the WCF in a good conscience. Those asking for less, or more, are entitled to do that, but they should not judge a brother who is at ease holding to the standard he gave an oath about. I am not talking about error here. Error is to be rejected. But opinion (which the additions or subtractions are) is just that, opinion.
But for your extra consideration, how do we respond to opinion and even to error. Gordon Clark has a little book on The Incarnation. It is a very interesting challenge to the “status quo” of Reformed thinking on that subject.
In Clark’s book, reference is made to a BIG disagreement that occurred between John Wesley and George Whitfield. The disagreement was over the doctrine of election. Clark recommends that everyone read Whitfield’s letter of reply to Wesley.
It taught me a lot about how to respond to others with whom we have sharp disagreement. Much of their disagreement was argued over the 39 Articles of the C of E. Whitfield, IMHO, wins the argument hands down, but it is not only the content of his words but the methods he uses, which I think we can benefit from.
I would recommend the letter to you for your consideration.
Here is a link (Starts about 3 paragraphs down on the page. Goes for several pages):
https://graceonlinelibrary.org/biographies/a-letter-from-george-whitefield-to-the-rev-john-wesley-by-george-whitefield/
Walt,
You continue to avoid the main problem with your position which is internally inconsistent. I will restate the problem for you here, and encourage you to address this glaring inconsistency in future comments:
I addressed a similar problem in another comment, as well:
These should be very simple for you to address, and yet you seem to avoid them.
The Church of Scotland has taught you to obey. Has it taught you to think?
Thanks,
Tim
Walt, how can I get you my email?
If you both concur, I will be happy to provide your e-mails to each other so they aren’t broadcast online.
Just let me know.
Tim
Tim, Ok with me. Thx
Tim, I just finished Graven bread. Thanks for writing that book Tim. The perversion of the communion table will be unforgivable.
Thanks, Kevin,
There are some things I would change in Graven Bread—like the appendix on the mortal head wound. More on that later. I wrote Graven Bread in the 1990s, and would change a few things. The underlying message is the same, though: papacy is the beast, apparitions of Mary the false prophet, miracle of the sun is the fulfillment of Revelation 13:13, eucharist is the image, eucharistic miracles are the image coming to life and having the power to talk, inquisitions are the period when people were put to death for not worshiping the image, etc…, as I have expounded here.
Thanks for your note.
Reading this took my breath away. I had no idea of the things written here.
I can now understand why exRomanists who have become Christians are often so outspoken against Rome’s teachings. Thx very much Tim.
John, ya, it is amazing isn’t it. The biggest ” church” in the world, dressed in robes and purporting to be Christ historical body, and be the way to heaven, is actually Satan’s door into hell. But why would he do it any other way. If he makes good look evil and vice versa then he would certainly use the external visibility to billions as “Christ’s church” to deceive all who enter. How many of my friends have always bragged to me about fuller communion that Protestants don’t have. But that’s just another way of saying I need to participate in my salvation by my works. It’s anti gospel and just a dressed up version of law system. But the gospel says repent and believe in the gospel Mark 1:15. As Spurgeon aptly said,Rome has piled so much rubbish on the cross, you can’t see it. Our hearts should break for those people, who are caught up in rampant idolatry and think they need a priest or absolution, when the need to believe the words of the gospel alone.
Thx Kevin. Yes, it puts new emphasis on the words about the devil that “he is the father of lies”. It also makes me realise afresh what a unique treasure we have in the Bible, which alone is the truth. This essay really shocked me.
Tim, you are laughable. All my responses have been block for what seems like a year, with the exceptions of those you let through so you and Kevin can jump on and say something and then blick my response to you. Give me a break. It is like sending someone into a boxing match where you tied both my hands and you and your darling Kevin can just pound on me over amd over, and my one chance is to kick you both with one message out of 30 you let slip through so you both can pound some more.
This is a very good experience for me as I have never faced this before in any blog debate. I was on many discussions and never had all my moderator choose what to release and then pound on me publically, and then block all my replies to defend myself. It is really fascinating and is teaching me how careful I must be to say anything where the only publish what they can use against me.
It has been a valuable lesson. John you are wrong but my replies to you are all blocked and have been for many months.
Walt, I have never blocked your answer to that question because you have never answered that question. Why all the bluster and complaining? Just answer the question. Here it is again:
Why are you unwilling to answer such a simple question?
Tim
Walt, your hands are tied behind your back? That’s rich. It’s my observation that you have received more Grace and rope here than anyone, although Tim has been gracious to us all to participate. But he expects us not to waste time on ad hominem but adresses the arguments. Please drop the I’m outnumbered stuff. I come here to study eschatology. I’m open to what scripture is saying. I have given difference to Tim because I think he has proven his positions from scripture. If you have a better argument against his position make it, I’m open. How, no one cares about your opinion on whose a prophet and who isn’t, let the man of God prove his position from scripture.
I have responded to one portion of the above article:
Catholics Think Mary is “Co-Creator”? (Refuting a Distortion of What St. Alphonsus de Liguori Actually Teaches in “The Glories of Mary”)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2023/07/catholics-think-mary-is-co-creator-vs-t-l-kauffman.html
NOTE: I have never yet received notice of replies to my comments in my email (for about eight comments so far).
Dave, thank you again for notifying me of your article.
The centerpiece of my position was simply to define “worship” using the Roman Catholic definition, and then see if Roman Catholic veneration of Mary technically meets the minimum requirements of their own definition. Roman Catholicism’s own definition states explicitly, among other things, “To adore God is to acknowledge him … as the Creator and … the Lord and Master of everything that exists.” As exhibit A, I offered Bonaventure saying of Mary, “The world which thou with God didst form from the beginning continues to exist at thy will, O most holy virgin.” As Bonaventure concedes, “the words of Proverbs [are] applied by the Church to Mary: I was with Him forming all things.” “The world continues to exist at thy will, oh most holy Virgin” is latria. Bonaventure’s sentiments ought not be defended, but rather he should be scolded and his words condemned.
This is precisely why John Henry Cardinal Newman distanced himself from such statements as these, yes, these very statements you are defending. Newman claimed “we cannot understand” what Bonaventure meant, and we ought not “imitate” such extravagance, for such men who utter these things are “beyond us.” The saints are offered to Roman Catholics as godly examples to imitate, and yet Newman could not bring himself to imitate Liguouri or Bonaventure:
Indeed, Newman would have rather remained in ignorance of him than actually read him, or imitate him, so jarring to him was Liguori’s “hyperdulia”.
That said, I found your response to have several significant weaknesses.
First, in your defense of Liguori’s adulation, you concede that this is “a complex theological topic” and that the words on their face “imply that Mary was literally creating with God,” and that “if it takes you this much work to defend what was said” it sounds like rationalizing. You should go with that. It does sound like rationalizing.
Second, your subject matter expert, Fastiggi, attempted to clarify Bonaventure’s words by acknowledging that “many Catholics are unaware” of the very criterion by which the “actual” meaning of Bonaventure’s words may be properly understood: “the doctrine of Mary’s predestination”. This is a rather remarkable concession, for it means the words sound very much like I read them, and that the key to understanding the actual meaning is unknown by “many Catholics.” Thus, “many Catholics” would read it exactly as I have — a point that rather undermines the position you are trying to make.
Third, Fastiggi’s defense of Bonaventure’s words is nonsensical, for it matters not what Fastiggi thinks Liguori meant. What matters is what Bonaventure plainly said, and what Liguori plainly affirms to be the correct interpretation according to the Church:
Liguori cites Bonaventure as follows:
Liguori then says Bonaventure’s statement is in perfect conformity with the teaching of the Church, which applies Proverbs 8:30 — “I was with him forming all things (cum eo eram cuncta conponens)” (Proverbs 8:23-30, Douay Rheims/Vulgate) — to Mary:
Fastiggi’s attempt to justify Bonaventure’s interpretation makes the passage (Proverbs 8:30) nonsensical, for he says Bonaventure’s words “quem et tu cum Deo fundasti ab initio” have been mistranslated as “thou with God didst form” but in reality simply mean “Mary was with Him … in a predestined sense.”:
The problem with Fastiggi’s attempt is that the Proverb, in which Bonaventure was properly “adhering” to Church teaching, itself is not about Wisdom being merely with God at the beginning when He formed all things, but rather that wisdom was making everything with Him:
In fact the Scriptures are replete with such passages of the role of Wisdom in Creation.
That is the “historical and theological context” of the Proverb that Liguori claimed Bonaventure had properly understood in accordance with Church teaching when he applied it to Mary — that Wisdom was with God at the beginning, forming all things, and Wisdom in this case may be properly understood to mean Mary.
For Fastiggi’s argument to work, the passage itself must mean not that God founded the earth by His wisdom (which it actually does), but rather Wisdom just happened to be with Him at the time He founded the Earth, but that His wisdom itself was not “forming all things.” The fact that God founded the earth by His Wisdom is the very point Bonaventure had drawn out, and which Liguori confirms is the correct interpretation, and the Vulgate confirms, and thus Bonaventure is said to be correct when he applies it to Mary saying “world which thou [Mary/Wisdom] with God didst form from the beginning.”
But Fastiggi has claimed, implicitly, that while Proverbs 8:30 means “the world which thou [Wisdom] with God didst form from the beginning” when applied to Wisdom, for indeed the Lord “established the world by His wisdom” (which is absolutely true), but must be rearranged to mean, “the world, which was formed from the beginning by God alone, but with you present” when applied to Mary. That is a remarkable stretch, for Fastiggi essentially changes the very text of the Scripture to justify his interpretation. Casuistry, indeed!
Finally, Fastiggi’s attempt to make this about Mary being predestined to be Jesus’ mother ends up heaping even more hyperlatria upon Mary rather than alleviating the concern I raised. He wrote,
If God’s decision is “free,” there are no “buts” to it. If there is a “but,” it is not “free.” Either God’s decision was “free” (unconstrained), or Mary’s was, but both cannot be. If God’s predestination required Mary’s “free consent,” then God’s decision was not “free” for it awaits the exercise of Mary’s “free consent”. Liguori goes on, indicating that God’s “free decision” was suspended from Mary’s “free consent,” and depended upon it:
This is how Mary’s “consent” ends up constraining God’s “free decision.” And thus, Liguori very justifiably concludes the only logical implication of that arrangement: that Mary’s “free consent,” her “fiat,” is greater than the very “fiat” that depended upon her “consent”:
Thus, in your and Fastiggi’s attempt to rationalize and justify Liguori by claiming that the saints do not adore Mary as equal to God, you end up conceding that in fact, she is adored above Him! That is hyperlatria.
Twisting yourself in knots like this is unseemly. How hard would it be, Dave, simply to say, Bonaventure and Liguori were wrong here, and should not have heaped such unseemly adoration upon Mary.
Instead, you justify it, and by doing so, justify Liguori’s logical conclusion from his erroneous premise, namely that if God’s decision to create the world depended upon Mary’s consent, then her Fiat is greater than His — the very concern you were trying to alleviate.
Nowhere else to go with this one. But I have another critique of this article that I just put up:
Mary, Not Jesus, is the Catholic “Savior”? (Response to More Misrepresentation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s Book, The Glories of Mary)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2023/07/mary-not-jesus-is-the-catholic-savior.html
Still no notifications of anything.
Dave Armstrong ” nowhere else to go with this one” then ” response to more misrepresentation of ……. Ligouri’s book” wait, Dave, you just conceeded the first argument to him and now you’re saying there is more misrepresentation to deal with ? Of course what else can you say when Kauffman says to you ” instead you justify it……….Ligouris logical conclusion from his erroneous premise , that if God ‘s decision to create the world depended on Mary’s consent, then her fiat is greater than his, the very concern you were tring to alleviate” im not sure you were trying to alleviate it Dave but imho you conceeded because how can one really justify Msry having any thing to do with creation, let alone giving her consent. Newman in his quote saying these men were so beyond him is not a denial but i dont dare go there. These men were treading on the sovereignty of God who alone said my glory I share with no one. Scripture says it is God who dwells in unapproachable light. These men were fools Dave who ascribe one ounce of any attribute of God’s creation or meditation to any sinner. Salvation is forever and only an rescue operation of God and no one else. Mary said “my sould rejoices in God my SAVIOR” . Mary knew jer place before God, a sinner by nature in need of forgiveness . My prayer is that Roman Catholics would repent of their idolatry and works righteousness and perceived goodness and believe alone in the gospel of scripture which Paul says ALONE holds the power for salvation. Thank you for indulging me. Regards Kevin
“Indulge” is certainly the apt word.
“ As exhibit A, I offered Bonaventure saying of Mary, “The world which thou with God didst form from the beginning continues to exist at thy will, O most holy virgin.” As Bonaventure concedes, “the words of Proverbs [are] applied by the Church to Mary: I was with Him forming all things.” “The world continues to exist at thy will, oh most holy Virgin” is latria. Bonaventure’s sentiments ought not be defended, but rather he should be scolded and his words condemned.”
And that would be because her will was to do the will of the father, as her response to the angel in Luke. This in no way entails that he was giving latria for praising her for doing the will of the father.
“ This is precisely why John Henry Cardinal Newman distanced himself from such statements as these, yes, these very statements you are defending. Newman claimed “we cannot understand” what Bonaventure meant, and we ought not “imitate” such extravagance, for such men who utter these things are “beyond us.” The saints are offered to Roman Catholics as godly examples to imitate, and yet Newman could not bring himself to imitate Liguouri or Bonaventure:”
And?
“ First, in your defense of Liguori’s adulation, you concede that this is “a complex theological topic” and that the words on their face “imply that Mary was literally creating with God,” and that “if it takes you this much work to defend what was said” it sounds like rationalizing. You should go with that. It does sound like rationalizing.”
Like you rationalizing parts of the church fathers that literally prove baptismal regeneration in the early church?
“ Second, your subject matter expert, Fastiggi, attempted to clarify Bonaventure’s words by acknowledging that “many Catholics are unaware” of the very criterion by which the “actual” meaning of Bonaventure’s words may be properly understood: “the doctrine of Mary’s predestination”. This is a rather remarkable concession, for it means the words sound very much like I read them, and that the key to understanding the actual meaning is unknown by “many Catholics.” Thus, “many Catholics” would read it exactly as I have — a point that rather undermines the position you are trying to make.”
Like most people would point out parts in the Bible where it sounds very much like they read them, but then doing some research you can prove this is opinion rather than fact.
“ Fastiggi’s attempt to justify Bonaventure’s interpretation makes the passage (Proverbs 8:30) nonsensical, for he says Bonaventure’s words “quem et tu cum Deo fundasti ab initio” have been mistranslated as “thou with God didst form” but in reality simply mean “Mary was with Him … in a predestined sense.”:
“Moreover, the line in Latin ” mundus, quem et tu cum Deo fundasti ab initio” should, I think, be translated as “the world, which was formed from the beginning by God with you.” The “cum” in Latin means “with” not “by.” God is the Creator but Mary was with Him in the beginning in a predestined sense.””
How is that nonsensical to think that?
“ The problem with Fastiggi’s attempt is that the Proverb, in which Bonaventure was properly “adhering” to Church teaching, itself is not about Wisdom being merely with God at the beginning when He formed all things, but rather that wisdom was making everything with Him:
“I was set up from eternity, … I was already conceived, … He had not yet made the earth, … When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law, and compass, he enclosed the depths: … I was with him forming all things (cum eo eram cuncta conponens)” (Proverbs 8:23-30, Douay Rheims/Vulgate)”
I don’t see how the quote can only possibly be “wisdom creating with him” when the beginning say that wisdom has always been present.
“ In fact the Scriptures are replete with such passages of the role of Wisdom in Creation.”
The difference is that those ones use the word “by” instead of with, giving the impression this isn’t the same wisdom being referred to in proverbs or by Jeremiah.
“ If God’s decision is “free,” there are no “buts” to it. If there is a “but,” it is not “free.” Either God’s decision was “free” (unconstrained), or Mary’s was, but both cannot be. If God’s predestination required Mary’s “free consent,” then God’s decision was not “free” for it awaits the exercise of Mary’s “free consent”. Liguori goes on, indicating that God’s “free decision” was suspended from Mary’s “free consent,” and depended upon it:”
How is this any different to any of the others god commanded to do one thing or another? The point is that his plan is so perfect he knows the right people for the job.
This is how Mary’s “consent” ends up constraining God’s “free decision.” And thus, Liguori very justifiably concludes the only logical implication of that arrangement: that Mary’s “free consent,” her “fiat,” is greater than the very “fiat” that depended upon her “consent”:
“O powerful Fiat!” exclaims St. Thomas of Villanova; “O efficacious Fiat! O Fiat to be venerated above every other Fiat! For with a fiat God created light, heaven, earth; but with Mary’s fiat,” says the saint, “God became man, like us”
Because her will was to do what god willed; for god to become man like us. It’s not that hard to “rationalize”
“ Thus, in your and Fastiggi’s attempt to rationalize and justify Liguori by claiming that the saints do not adore Mary as equal to God, you end up conceding that in fact, she is adored above Him! That is hyperlatria.”
That’s laughable
“ Twisting yourself in knots like this is unseemly. How hard would it be, Dave, simply to say, Bonaventure and Liguori were wrong here, and should not have heaped such unseemly adoration upon Mary.”
My response would be to say “twisting yourself in knots like this is unseemly. How hard would it be that you were wrong about these theologians instead of continuing to “rationalize” your anti catholic bias?
“ Instead, you justify it, and by doing so, justify Liguori’s logical conclusion from his erroneous premise, namely that if God’s decision to create the world depended upon Mary’s consent, then her Fiat is greater than His — the very concern you were trying to alleviate.”
If this is your post explaining that, color me unimpressed.
I have replied to a second portion of this article, too:
Bible on Imitating Saints
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2023/07/bible-on-imitating-saints-vs-t-l-kauffman.html
It almost amusing ( if it werent dead serious) that praying to Mary, calling her the mediatrix of all graces( no one is better at substituting people for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit than Rome which JC Ryle called one giant system of idolatry) is just a little immitation of the saints. This is how it works in Roman Catholicism. God is transcendent, a tough guy, and you cant go to him. And Jesus hes tough too, so you go to his mother because who can resist a mother,and then she goes and softens him up. This strikes at the heart of God the saviour who is a savior by nature. Hes the one who said come unto me all weary and of heavy burden. For Dave Armstrong its just a bit of imitating of the saints thats going on, nothing to worry about. Parying to Mary is a serious thing Dave, calling her the mediatrix of grace is serious. Pope JP 2 committed the whole church into the hands of Mary when he died,neven having his devotion to her sewn into his garments. Its delusional. Roman Catholics have a hard time distinguishing things and with discontinuity, like no works no you gift by faith in Ephessians 2:8 with ” who by those works truly merit eternal life” , or the discontinuity betwen the Old Covenant and the New, or Aquinas saying man is predestined to glory by his merit in some way and the bible saying man is saved just be the goodness of God as a gift. Imitating the Godly behavior of a saint does not involve praying to them or saying grace comes from them. Paul said ” i am what i am by the grace of God” . In the Roman Catholic false religion grace is simply the currency of exchange on the church merit system and praying to Mary is just a bit of imitation.
The “101 objections” routine, unfortunately filled with misrepresentations and ignorance of our doctrines. Keep reading my stuff and at least you’ll learn what we actually teach — agree or disagree.
” keep reading my stuff and at least youll learn ” what man says this about himself. Whats fascinating is your approach though , you said ” refuting a distortion” it takes one to know one. Ill tell you what distortion is, reading the Exodus 20 verse that Kauffman quoted in his argument while your church bows to bread and prays to a dead woman who hasnt heard a prayer since the day she died., and then saying hes making a legalistic argument. Now thats distortion.
Here is the reasoning the Roman apolgist like Dave Armstrong “thou shall have no other gods before me . Thou shall not make unto thee ANY graven image , or likeness of ANY thing that is in heaven above, or that is in earth beneath , or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shall not bow down to them, nor serve them” now here is Armstrong’s statement right after quoting Tim Kauffman quoting this scripture, ” He ( Tim Kauffman) would make out ( as far as i can tell from his remarks) that all bowing bedore images is an act of idolatry” hey Dave, thats what the verse just said. You immediately imply that not all bowing before images is idolatry, even after the verse tells you not to bow to any images under over on the earth. None. What you are really saying is there are exceptions to the commandment. There isnt. You are right Mr Armstrong, if i continue to read your stuff ill learn a lot. You go on about Kauffman’s point ” in effect, he makes all images ” graven images” thats right, any image you bow down OR SERVE is forbidden. Your article refutes scripture under the guise of ” legalistic” saying there are exceptions, when the verse says any image. Poor reasing Mr Armstrong. You finish in that section with ” but this too is a falsehood” no its not a falsehood because Kauffman didnt say it, the scripture did, and Kauffman is saying the RC violates that commandment. It is you Me Armstrong in an attempt again to justify your church practices is making some images acceptable for bowing and serving. Incidentally, pointing out error and stating scriptural truth isnt 101 objections, its calling to account what you wrote. Sorry you giving me your resume ofv qualifications on RC doctrine holds no weight with me. Thx Dave.
Am I banned now? Just checking.
Dave, you are not banned. I had to go into the server and actively subscribe you to notifications. You were already subscribed to comments on this post, but were not subscribed to notifications overall. You should see notifications going forward.
Thanks for the explanation. I still have not received a single notification of any replies to my comments. Some sort of glitch there.
Ah, good. I tried five times and one came through.
What I was gonna say is that I eagerly await Timothy’s replies. More critiques are coming.
Dave” the strong insinuation is that Catholics make Mary their savior, not Jesus” well if a Catholic calls her the gate to heaven, a Catholic prays to her, and you say she was sinless ( something you personally confirmed in your retort, even saying Jesus other family members might be ) then yes you are placing her above God and in place of the savior. Again JP2 at his death commited the whole church into the hands of Mary, seriously . She is referred to as the mediatrix of all grace. John MacArthur does an amazing message on how as Jesus’s ministry grew Mary lesssened. He deflected glory away from her and she fades away, actually Paul mentions her once in the epistles ” born of a woman”. And this is the prpblem with Roman Catholicism, its a false religion, human institution witch a false gospel of human achievement. Its interesting to me Dave that you put Tim Kauffman’s statement that he was saved out of Catholicism into Christianity at the top of your retort. Because you need to understand either we are co laborers for Christ, or Roman Catholicism is the mission field. It cant be both. And Protestants shouldnt be willing to throw away 500 years of the reformation and martyrdom for the true gospel, for some ecumenical joint statement and false unity. Unity comes thru the truth, and the Marion ego in your church is just one of many examples of idolatry and usurping the Trinity with men, sinners. K
Dave said” indulge ” is certainly an apt word for you. Well lets find an apt word for Dave . He said ” for God shares his glory with them” in Dave’s attempt to justify imitating special saints with exrra special merit. But Isaiah 42:8″ I am the Lord. That is my name. I will NOT yeild my glory to another” . So the apt word for Dave is ignorant, of the scriptures. God says he shares his glory with NO ONE, and Dave says no God shares his glory with the special Roman Catholics.
Isaiah says: “I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to idols.”
Isaiah 42:8 NRSV-CI
To be sure, there is a divine glory which is the very essence of God, which is himself, that he can share with no created being. Nobody but God can be God. But, in a limited way, God does share his glory by sharing his nature with his adopted children, the brothers and sisters of his firstborn Son (Rom. 8:29). This is the teaching of 2 Peter 1:3-4: “His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power. Through these he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature.” This sharing in God’s nature makes us a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).
Scripture teaches that God bestows this glory of his on his children: “For a sun and a shield is the Lord God; grace and glory he bestows” (Ps.84:12); “Then Jerusalem shall be my joy, my praise, my glory” (Jer. 33:9); “I will put my salvation within Zion, and give my glory to Israel.” (Is. 46:13), Christ’s Church, therefore, receives his salvation and glory, because the Church is the new Jerusalem, the new Israel (Gal. 6:16; Rev. 21:2, 21:12, 3:12).
We are now in glory, and we are destined for glory. The texts which witness to this are so numerous, I shall list only some in a footnote,(Romans 2:6-7, 10, 8:18; 1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:17; Col. 1:27, 3:1-4;, 2 Thess. 1:11-12;, 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 2:10; Heb. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 1:7, 5:4.) so as not to delay the reader here. But I would say to anyone who thinks that God is not going to share his glory with us, his children, his saints, well, as Eliza Doolittle sings, “Just you wite!” God’s whole plan of salvation involves his sharing his glory with his redeemed and adopted children.
We praise and venerate the saints in heaven, praying to them, praying with them to the Father through Christ in the Spirit, thanking God who prepares us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light (Col. 1:12). Our devotion to Mary, God’s Mother and ours, and to our brothers and sisters, the saints, is all the more solid, humble, and grateful because we know that even the holiest and most fervent Christians on earth cannot possibly honor them as much as God has already honored them.
” we praise and venerate the saints in heaven , praying to them, ” Mary hasnt heard a prayer since the day she died. We are commanded to pray to God thru one mediator Christ. The biggest thing you will find in church history is the utter insertion of sinful man of himself in his salvation, And the biggest culprit is Roman Catholicism. Certainly Aquinas fatal error was saying man is predestined to glory by his merit in some way, instead of just the goodness of God. The rich young ruler thought he had contributed and yet Jesus said no. Only God is it possible. The sad thing Noah is Roman Catholics thru history have gone to those sacraments to earn their salvation and yet God will reject their system. ” for if its by works it is no longer of grace. K
We have evidence they are aware of our prayers.
You don’t have to know everything to know some things, so the saints don’t have to be omniscient to be aware of our prayer requests.
We do not know much about how the human intellect works in heaven, but the fact that heaven is a higher state than this life suggests we will have more rather than less awareness. This is also suggested because we will be made “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4) and transformed to be like God by virtue of the beatific vision (1 John 3:2).
Scripture does not give many pictures of what life in heaven is like, but it shows saints and angels aware of what is happening on earth (Rev. 6:9–11, 7:13–14, 11:15–18, 16:5–6, 18:20).
The common understanding is that the saints are aware of our prayer requests through union with God. It is reasonable to suppose that, in the perfect state of heaven, people will have whatever information is relevant to them. Thus God can make a saint aware that someone is asking for his intercession.
However saints and angels are aware of our prayer requests, Scripture indicates that they are. In Revelation 5:8, the twenty-four elders, who appear to represent the leaders of the people of God in heaven, offer incense to God. We are told that the incense is “the prayers of the saints.” In Revelation 8:3–4, an angel offers incense that is mingled with “the prayers of all the saints.”
At that time, the term “saint” was commonly used to refer to liv- ing Christians (2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1). It is natural to see these passages as depicting the inhabitants of heaven presenting the prayer requests of the saints on earth to God. This is surely part of what 8:3 means by the reference to the prayers of “all the saints.”
TIP
If it is suggested that these passages don’t deal with prayer requests made to those in heaven, then our point is made even stronger, for the passages would show that those in heaven were aware of prayer requests that weren’t even addressed to them!
Christ has a unique role as mediator, but this does not mean that he alone intercedes with God.
The term “mediator” (Greek, mesitēs) began as a business term refer- ring to an intermediary who helped two parties do business. In Judaism and other ancient religions, it came to refer to one who served a similar role securing good relations between God and man, reconciling them.
In several senses, Jesus is uniquely the Mediator. First, by virtue of the Incarnation, he alone is the God-man, who shares the natures of God and man (CCC 618). Second, because he is God incarnate, he became the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6, 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19).
Jesus’ status as the “one mediator” does not mean he is the only person with a role between God and men. Paul’s apostleship meant he had such a role, and he appealed to his apostleship in the same passage he refers to Jesus as the one Mediator (1 Tim. 2:7). Other ministers have similar roles (2 Cor. 5:20; cf. 1 Thess. 5:12, Heb. 13:17), as do all Christians (2 Cor. 3:2–3; 1 Pet. 3:15).
Although Jesus intercedes for us (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1), he is not the only one to do so. The Holy Spirit does (Rom. 8:26–27), and all Christians are called to as well. Thus Jesus instructs us how to pray for ourselves and others (Matt. 6:5–13), and tells us to pray even for our enemies (Matt. 5:44).
Paul asks for prayer for himself and for others (Rom. 15:30; 2 Cor. 1:11; 2 Thess. 3:1–2), and he introduces the very passage in which he refers to Christ as the one Mediator by exhorting his readers to pray for others: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, inter- cessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men” (1 Tim. 2:1).
TIP
If this objection worked, it would prove too much: If Jesus’ status as
the one Mediator meant only he could intercede for us, then it would contradict his teaching that we should pray for others.
Of course the qualification for being Roman Catholic is the utter inability to distinguish the difference between things. Imitating Godly behavior with ” he shares his glory with them” does God share his glory with us? No he doesnt. Do we imitate Godly behavior in others. Yes. They arent the same. But as Tim points out we should imitate Christ as our example. One mediator from more than one. Can one logically distinguish, not Roman Catholics. No works no you Ephessians 2:8 from as a reward to those very works. He offered himself once and for all from he offers himself again and again, since Trent anathematized anyone who says each and every mass isnt a real and proper sacrifice of Christ in itself. Finished from ongoing. Believe from merit. Idols from Jesus. And so it goes. 1 John 2:27 says those who truly believe in the gospel of scripture have an annointing to believe what is true, and clearly the ability to distinguish clearly these things. ” keep yourselves from idols”
Even if we assume that Paul is speaking of “good works” when he says we have not been saved by works, this in no way conflicts with Catholic theology. Notice that the passage speaks of salvation in the past tense—”you have been saved.” In Greek this is the perfect tense, which denotes a past, completed action.
Image of banner for The Early Church Was the Catholic Church $10 plus free shipping
We know from other passages in Paul that salvation also has present and future aspects, so the kind of salvation Paul is discussing in Ephesians 2:8-9 is initial salvation. It is the kind which we received when we first came to God and were justified, not the kind of salvation we are now receiving (cf. 1 Peter 1:8-9, Phil. 2:12) or the kind we will one day receive (cf. Rom. 13:11, 1 Cor. 3:15, 5:5).
But the Catholic Church does not teach that we receive initial justification by good works. You do not have to do good works in order to come to God and be justified.
The Council of Trent states: “We are said to be justified by grace because nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For ‘if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise,’ as the apostle says, ‘grace is no more grace’ [Rom. 11:6]” (Decree on Justification 8).
So even if Paul were using “works” to mean “good works” in Ephesians 2:8-9, there is no conflict with Catholic theology. However, Paul probably does not mean “good works.” Normally when he says “works,” he means “works of the Law.” His point is to stress that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the Mosaic Law. Jews have no ability to boast in front of Gentiles of having a privileged relationship with God because they keep the Mosaic Law and its requirement of circumcision (cf. Romans 2:6-11, 17-21, 25-29, 3:21-22, 27-30).
These same elements—works, boasting, circumcision, and the Jewish/Gentile distinction—are present in Ephesians 2. Paul discusses how Jew and Gentiles are united together in the body of Christ and mentions works in connection with boasting, before turning to the whole subject of circumcision and membership in Christ:
“Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision . . . remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel . . . But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the Law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two . . . and might reconcile us both to God in one body. . . . So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:11-19).
Because of the common themes of both passages, Paul is probably using “works” and “boasting” here as he does in Romans, i.e., of Jews boasting before Gentiles of having privilege with God due to their keeping the Mosaic Law.
The apostle then turns our attention away from works of the Mosaic Law and toward the kind of works a Christian should be interested in-good works: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).
The sense of what Paul is saying is: “God has raised up both of us—Jews and Gentiles—to sit in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, for we received initial salvation as a gift. We obtained it by faith in Christ (which itself is a gift from God), not by works of obedience to the Mosaic Law. So neither Jew or Gentile can boast over the other of having privilege with God. “Instead, we Christians are the result of God’s work, for he created us anew in the body of Christ so that we might do good works-the kind of works we should be concerned about-for God intended ahead of time for us to do them” (paraphrase of Eph. 2:6-10).
If Protestants try to put Catholics on the defensive using Ephesians 2:8-9, they themselves are put on the defensive when Catholics cite James 2:24. Protestants are known their slogan stating that we are justified by “faith alone,” but the expression “faith alone” only appears once in the Bible-in James 2:24-where it is rejected. This is a burr under the saddle of Protestants, for if they want to use terms the way the Bible does, they would have to give up their chief slogan.
When Catholics point this out, many Protestants attempt damage control by attacking the faith being discussed in James 2, saying it is an inferior or bad faith. Some do this by labeling it “dead faith.” They treat “faith without works is dead” (vv. 17, 26) as if it were a definition and say, “If faith does not produce works then it is dead faith. It is this dead faith that James says won’t save us.”
But reading the context shows that James is not using the phrase as a definition. He is not defining the term “dead faith.” That term does not appear in the text. He is stating a fact, not offering a definition. The interpretation flies apart at the seams when we test it by substituting “dead faith” wherever the text mentions faith.
On that reading, people would be boasting of having dead faith (vv. 14). James would be making the redundant statement that dead faith without works is dead (vv. 17, 26) and offering to prove that dead faith is barren (v. 20). He would be offering to show people his dead faith by his works (v. 18) and commending people (“you do well”) for having dead faith (v. 19).
Finally, he would be telling us that Abraham’s dead faith was active with his works (v. 22) and that Abraham believed God with dead faith and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (v. 23).
Another attempt to impugn the faith in this passage uses the statement “Even the demons believe-and shudder” (v. 19). People ask, “What kind of faith do demons have? Only mere intellectual assent. They intellectually assent to the truths of theology, but this is as far as their faith goes.”
This understanding of the faith in James 2 is closer to the truth, but it still creates problems-in fact, many of the same problems. People would be boasting of having mere intellectual assent (v. 14). James would be offering to show others his mere intellectual assent by his works (v. 18). He would be commending people for having mere intellectual assent (v. 19) and saying that Abraham’s mere intellectual assent was active along with his works (v. 22)-in which case it wouldn’t be “mere” any more.
Finally, he would be saying that Abraham’s mere intellectual assent was reckoned to him as righteousness, contradicting verse 23, which would state that mere intellectual assent is barren.
The “mere intellectual assent” solution fails just as the “dead faith” one did. In fact, any solution that impugns the faith James is talking about as a bad or inferior faith will fail. This can be seen by going through the passage and substituting “bad faith” and “inferior faith” wherever faith is mentioned.
Such solutions fail because James does not see anything wrong with the faith he is talking about. The faith isn’t the problem; the fact it is alone is the problem.
To understand what kind of faith James has in mind, one must avoid the temptation to read something bad into it. This is where the “mere intellectual assent” solution went wrong. Its advocates correctly identified verse 19 as the key to understanding the faith being discussed, which is intellectual assent. Adding the term “mere” to make it sound bad created the problems.
Leave “mere” off, and the problems vanish. Someone can go around boasting that he intellectually assents to God’s truth (v. 14), prompting James’s need to show that intellectual assent without works is dead and barren (vv. 17, 20, 26). He could offer to show his intellectual assent by his works (v. 18). And he could commend a person for having intellectual assent (v. 19a), while saying that even the demons have it but it doesn’t stop them from shuddering at the prospect of God’s wrath (v. 19b).
Finally, he can speak of how Abraham’s intellectual assent was active with and completed by his works (v. 22) and can conclusion that man is not justified by intellectual assent alone (v. 24).
James views intellectual assent as good thing (“you do well,” v. 19a), but not as a thing that will save us by itself (vv. 14, 17, 20, 24, 26).
Thus if one uses the language of the Bible, one would say that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law . . . not by faith alone . . . for faith apart from works is dead . . . but faith working through love” (Rom. 3:28, Jas. 2:24, 26, Gal. 5:6).
Noah, please notice the opposition that Paul puts works and grace 11:6″ but if its by grace , it is NO LONGER of works, otherwise it is no longer of grace” as well 4:16″ the promise comes by faith, SO THAT it might be in accordance with grace that it may be GUARANTEED.” If a Roman Catholic wants to be saved by gace alone it will have to be by faith alone in Christ alone. Incidentally when Paul speaks of the law hes always speaking of all of it. Sometimes he says works, sometimes works of law and sometimes law. To break one part is to be guilty of all of it.
Given the above, we should expect the proper understanding of Romans 11:6 to be about God saving people apart from their ethnic lineage, namely saving a person regardless if they are biologically Jewish. But for apologetic’s purposes, we obviously have to confront the popular Protestant reading, so that’s what we’ll do now.
I think the most effective means to prove the Protestant reading incorrect is to simply stop and think about what is being said. Too often we don’t stop to think about whether our interpretation actually makes logical sense. First, let’s look to see if “works” here could even mean what the Protestant alleges.
The “works” in 11:6 cannot mean “sinful works,” since nobody would be arguing that sinful works save. So the only Protestant alternative is that the “works” in 11:6 must mean “good works”. But can you do good works apart from grace in the realm of getting saved? No. Nobody teaches that. Protestants and Catholics hold that good works are always inspired by grace. The alternative is Pelagianism, which everyone rejects. So, the Protestant must affirm the “good works” in this case must be understood as “good works inspired by grace”. But that raises a problem. How can Paul be speaking against “good works inspired by grace”? That would undermine the whole basis of a Christian receiving the Holy Spirit in order that they might live a life of holy deeds and sanctification. So how can Paul put “grace” and “works” as opposites if good works require grace? That’s like saying “gasoline versus car,” which is silly because a car requires gas. So grace and good works cannot be opposites, as Protestants have mistakenly thought all this time. Using this approach, we see the Protestant logic has run into a problem, and the only solution is that “works” here cannot mean “good works”. We must abandon the phony “grace versus good works” dichotomy that has been running rampant for too long. We must stop reading Paul as primarily concerned with Pelagianism.
A Protestant would probably object by saying that the “grace” here simply means “God’s favor,” and not God’s power working within us (e.g. Eph 2:5). But that doesn’t get around the issue that there is nothing bad or contrary to salvation about good works inspired by the Holy Spirit, so Paul still wouldn’t be putting a wedge between “God’s favor” and “good works inspired by God”.
One Protestant whom I talked to tried to argue that what is in view in this context is not Justification, but rather being Elected/Chosen by God. And he even appealed to the context, so that’s where we’ll now turn.
Romans 11: 1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened…
The theme and language is most certainly the same as with other “grace” or “faith” versus “works” passages, so there’s no reason to think this passage is substantially different. Rather, it’s more reasonable to assume “Chosen” ties in closely with Justification, Adoption, etc. Perhaps the ideas are synonymous in Paul’s mind. So I don’t think claiming that this is about being Chosen alters anything I’m saying in any substantial way.
The context here is fascinating, and I think very decisive for understanding 11:6. The lesson is that most of Israel has been unfaithful and fell into apostasy. The same theme of Romans 9 and 10 are continued here. The claim here is that those who are biological “descendants of Abraham,” the Israelites who were the original “chosen/elect people” (Deut 14:2; Ps135:4; Amos 3:2; Rom 11:1A) have ended up not saved, and in fact seemingly rejected by God. The lesson is not about God choosing unconditionally. The lesson is about sinners falling away, just as we saw in Ch9-10, with a minority of faithful who keep things on track. In fact, Paul explicitly references Elijah and 7,000 faithful Jews here whom God considers a “chosen remnant”. That’s an important point, because God is not electing/choosing sinners here, which is what we would expect under the Reformed Protestant reading. Instead, God is selecting people who have been on good behavior! How can Paul say “not of works” if the explicit lesson here is that God has elected these men based on their good works (e.g. not bowing in worship of Baal)? Again, the Protestant mindset cannot explain this. The only feasible reading is that “works” here refer to biological lineage, in which case Paul is saying that simply being a biological descendant of Abraham was not enough, since you also had to be faithful. In this way, the “grace” of choosing a remnant means that while God could have wiped out all of Israel for the unfaithfulness of the majority, in His mercy, God allowed a remnant to survive. Indeed, this is precisely what the OT passage is speaking about, in 1 Kings 19:18, God is saying He’s going to wipe out everyone, but “leave” 7,000 who didn’t go apostate. God is going to let them live, not punish them along with everyone else. This sounds a lot like when elsewhere Paul speaks of the wrath of God coming upon all humanity to wipe out the evil, a type of Passover, with only the faithful being spared.
Paul is saying there was a time in Salvation History when “works,” that is biological lineage, was the central focus. But this ended when Jesus arrived, the promised Seed of Abraham. Thus, Paul says, it is “no longer” by works, because now things are fully revealed. Paul brilliantly shows from the OT that apostasy is not an unknown thing, and in fact was a kind of foreshadow or expectation for the future. Thus, when Paul says “so too at the present time there is a remnant,” this can only mean the 3,000 Jews who accepted the Gospel at Pentecost (Acts 2:41), while the majority rejected or didn’t care about the coming of Jesus. And now, Paul is a kind of Elijah, persecuted by the Jews and tempted to despair if not for the comforting example of Elijah’s hardship.
Noah ” to be about saving people apart from their ethinc lineage” except it doesnt say that, the verse context is putting grace and works in opposition in salvation. Paul is not speaking against good works inspired by grace, he is simply saying that salvation is of grace not works. Incidentaly you avoided the verse which adds even more support 4:16 which says that it is by faith so that it might be in agreement with grace, and its guaranteed( which incidentally is an argument against Karlo cant know hes saved). You said ” that they might live a life of holy deeds” no Protestant disagrees that Christians live lives of holy deeds, we just arent saved by them. Ephessians 2:8 says we are saved as a GIFT apart from ourselves and our works. Titus 3:5 says he saved us, NOT based on righteous deeds. Im always amazed at the RC who cant understand these simple verses that you or your works have nothing to do with your salvation. Paul again says in 4:5 God justifies a sinner who does not work. So when you read ” to the one who works well to the end ” you have to marvel at these sophists, or you can just read 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and it explains it all. And no Paul isnt talking about lineage, hes talking about the mosaic law which includes the 10 comandments. He says in Galatians 3:11 no man is justified by the law. Then he says law is not faith. Iow there is no virtue attached to faith that merits the acceptance of God.
Paul does not specifically say works of law in Romans 4:5, but if we read from Romans 3:28 to Romans 4:5 and beyond, the context makes it unmistakable: Paul was referring to circumcision in particular and the same “works of law” he was referring to in Romans 3:28. Romans 4:5-10 will suffice to make the point:
And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness . . . Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Paul used the example of the “Judaizers” to teach the truth about the nature of justification and works. The works that justify us—as we saw in Romans 2:6-11 and James 2:24—are works done in Christ. Indeed, in Romans 2:4, before Paul even begins to talk about the works we must do to be saved, he says, “Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance” (Douay-Rheims). It is only God’s goodness that leads us to repentance so that we can perform good works. How do we get “in Christ” according to Paul? Through baptism: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death . . .” (Rom 6:3-4). It is only after we are in Christ and trusting in the power of his grace at work within us that we have the power to remain in him: “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God” (Rom 5:1-2).
Moreover, in Romans 6:16, Paul tells us that after baptism, obedience to Christ leads us to justification while sin will lead us to death (see also Romans 6:23): “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness” (Gk. eis dikaiosunen, unto justification).
Paul’s emphasis is not just on good works, but works done in and through the power of Christ. Thus, in Romans 8:1-14,Paul tells us in no uncertain terms that we must be in Christ in order to do works that please God.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus . . . who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit . . . and those who are in the flesh cannot please God . . . So, then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.
Remember that Paul is emphasizing our continuing in Christ, in his grace or “kindness” as he says in Romans 11:22. “Note then the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”
Work through Love
When Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians, he had these same “Judaizers” in mind:
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 with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh . . . Now I Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness (Gk. dikaiosoune, justification). For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. (Gal 3:2-3, 5:2-6)
Evidently, some of the Galatians were giving in to the false teaching that commanded them to return to the Law of Moses for salvation. He warns them that returning to the old Law is to reject Christ. But he in no way even hints at any idea of a “justification by faith alone” that would deny the necessity of “faith working through love.” Paul writes in the simplest of terms, in Galatians 5:19-21 and 6:7-9, that if Christians allow themselves to be dominated by their “flesh,” or lower nature, they will not make it to heaven. While on the flip side, Christians will only reap the reward of eternal life if they continue to “sow to the Spirit” or perform good works:
Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God . . . Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption (eternal death); but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.
Work out Salvation
Ephesians 2:8-9 declares: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast.” This is another text commonly used to dismiss good works as necessary for salvation in the life of a Christian. However, once again, context is the key to understanding Paul. In verses 4-6, he says: “But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ . . . and raised us up with him . . .”
Context reveals that St. Paul was talking about the initial grace of salvation or justification by which we are raised from death unto life. The construction of the Greek text of Ephesians 2:8-9 makes clear that both grace and faith are entirely unmerited. Many Protestants are shocked to discover this is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches—and baptizes babies to prove it. How much more can the Church do to demonstrate this truth? What kind of works could a newborn baby have done to merit anything? However, once that baby grows up and reaches the age of accountability, he must begin to “work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in [him], both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12-13). Or, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:10: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
Are we justified or saved by faith, according to Jesus? Certainly! But by faith alone that would exclude works in every sense? No way. In John 11:25, we read: “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.” That is faith. Yet, in Matthew 19:17-19, Jesus declared: “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments . . . You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” That is works.
In Matthew 12:37, Jesus puts any thought of justification by faith alone to rest: “. . . for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated. To repeat his sacrifice would be to imply that the original offering was defective or insufficient, like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament that could never take away sins. Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal.
Protestants have no qualms accepting the perfect and efficacious nature of Christ’s sacrifice, but invite them to consider its eternal.aspect. Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6). He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us.
The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, “This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you.” So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). After all, if Calvary didn’t get the job done, then the Mass won’t help. It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ—it is the work of Christ.
” the risen Christ becomes present on the altar” indeed Bishop O’ brien says the priest has the popwer to bring Christ down and render him the victim on the altar. In fact the canons of Trent anathametizes anyone who says the each mass isnt a true and proper sacrifice for sins. But Hebrews 10:14 says thru one finished sacrifice never to be repeated or continued of Christ himself he perfected believers. Our atonement is completed and has perfected us and now Christ is applying his sacrifice on our behalf in heaven. What he isnt doing is being offered up again for our sins. This abomination started with Greg of Nyssa in the 4th century. Please read Tim’s sries here on how the Eucharist offering was perverted. Its fascinating. Lastly, church’s can carry out Christ’s mission in the world, the church is not the same as Jesus Christ in the world, and incarnations arent finished thru the acts of the church. Rome fataly puts sacramental efficacy up in the place of the atonement and in place of justification by faith.
This fundamentally misunderstands what an anathema was. It reads a non-Catholic understanding of the term into Catholic documents.
In Church documents, the term “anathema” does not mean “damned by God.” It refers to a form of excommunication that used to be practiced. When a person was excommunicated by anathema, a series of procedures had to be followed, including the local bishop warning the person he was committing a grave ecclesiastical crime and imperiling his soul. If he failed to repent, an ecclesiastical court would try and convict him, then the bishop would hold a public ceremony where he was excommunicated (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1–5, 1 Tim. 1:20). If he later repented, the bishop would perform another public ceremony, lift the
excommunication, and welcome him back (cf. 2 Cor. 2:6–8).
When Trent used the formula “Let him be anathema,” it indicated bishops could apply this form of excommunication to Catholics in
their flocks who committed certain offenses.
The penalty did not take effect automatically. Thus, it never applied globally to Protestants. Not only were Protestants not subjects of Catholic bishops, the bishops had better things to do than conduct endless court procedures and ceremonies concerning people who were not part of the Catholic community.
In practice, the penalty of anathema was imposed rarely and only on those who continued to assert their Catholic identity. Eventually, it became so infrequent that it was abolished and does not exist today. The current Code of Canon Law (1983) does not contain the penalty of anathema, and it abrogates all penalties it does not contain (cf. canon 6).
Excommunication still exists and is still applied if a Catholic embraces a heresy (canons 751, 1364; cf. canons 11, 1321–23, 1330). How- ever, the form of excommunication known as anathema no longer exists. But even when it did, anathema did not judge the state of a per- son’s soul—something only God knows. It was a disciplinary measure intended to protect the Catholic community and to wake a Catholic up to the spiritual danger he was in.
Consider the larger context of Hebrews 10:11-18:
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more.”
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Here the author of Hebrews compares the sacrifices of Old Covenant priests, which had to be offered repeatedly, with the one sacrifice of Christ. Some of these Old sacrifices were offered daily (Heb. 10:11), and some less frequently, like the annual Passover and Yom Kippur/Day of Atonement sacrifices. The author of Hebrews makes the argument that Jesus fulfills the Day of Atonement sacrifices in Hebrews 9, especially verses 11-14.
Because Christ’s one sacrifice culminated in everlasting glory, he continues to offer it in the heavenly sanctuary on our behalf (Heb. 8:1-3). That’s why he holds his priesthood permanently (Heb. 7:23-25), even now interceding on our behalf (Heb. 9:23-24).
So Jesus is the high priest of heaven (CCC 662-64, 1137-39), and he always lives to make intercession for us. The Sacrifice of the Mass is our participation anew in Christ’s one continuing sacrifice, through which he always lives to make intercession for us (Heb. 7:23-25). This mean that the eucharistic sacrifice has continuing atoning power for the sins we commit daily (CCC 1366).
Jesus’ one sacrifice is made sacramentally present and offered anew at every Mass according to the order of Melchizedek, i.e., under the forms of bread and wine (Gen. 14:18-20, Heb. 5:7-10, Matt. 26:26-29, Luke 22:19-20; see CCC 1333, 1355, 1544). Consequently, the words of the Lord’s Prayer—“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”—are nowhere more profoundly fulfilled than in the Mass, because heaven and earth are united in a most perfect way that further fosters the redemption of mankind.
“ This abomination started with Greg of Nyssa in the 4th century. Please read Tim’s sries here on how the Eucharist offering was perverted.”
How about reading David waltz’s series on responding to Tim and a man named Brian culliton? He also linked Protestant criticism of Brian, of course Anglican, as well as a commenter linking a response from a Lutheran. I’m sure you’d find it very interesting
Let’s take 1 John 2:27 for starters.
We know John can’t be rejecting a living, teaching authority, because three verses earlier he instructed his readers to “let what you heard from the beginning abide in you” and “if what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father” (1 John 2:24). If John meant for Christians to follow only the testimony of the Spirit—which is what he refers to when he speaks of “the anointing” in verse 27—then he would be contradicting himself here in verse 24. The instruction to let what they’ve heard abide in them implies they received instruction from men.
Another reason we know John is not rejecting the need for a magisterium is because, two chapters later, he instructs his readers that listening to the apostles is the criterion for discerning the spirit of truth from the spirit of error: “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6).
For John, adherence to the living body of teaching officials—namely, the apostles—is the assured means for obtaining the purity of truth without the admixture of error. Moreover, John makes clear that union with God is contingent on union with and obedience to the Church.
Magisterium or body of believers?
Now, one might object, “The us that John refers to is not to be taken distinctively. It doesn’t necessarily mean a body of teaching officials. It is to be understood in a non-distinctive way as referring to the whole of the Christian community.”
But even if one takes the non-distinctive interpretation, it still necessarily involves the body of teaching officials. Why? According to Matthew 18:15-17, one is not a part of the Christian community, the whole of the universal Church, unless he adheres to the official teaching of the magisterium. The preaching and teaching of the Christian Church as a whole is contingent upon the preaching and teaching of this living teaching authority. So, even if the “us” refers to the whole Christian community, the teaching of the Christian community necessarily involves the body of teaching officials.
If John is not affirming the Protestant idea that all we need to know God’s truth is the testimony of the Spirit, then what does he mean?
The context reveals that John is warning his readers against false teachers: “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 John 2:19). If there are false teachers, that implies there are true teachers that Christians ought to listen to. The Spirit, or “the anointing,” teaches Christians the truth, but through the living teaching authority and not apart from them.
As the council fathers stated at the first council in Jerusalem, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” (Acts 15:28, emphasis added). This is why John can teach in 1 John 4:6 that adherence to the Church is the condition for being united to God.
We can know we’re saved
Okay, maybe John isn’t manifesting his Protestantism in 1 John 2:27, but surely he believes the Protestant doctrine that we can have certain knowledge of our salvation: “I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13). It doesn’t get anymore Protestant than that, right?
Uh, not exactly. Notice in the next verse (14) John writes, “And this is the confidence which we have in him” (emphasis added). This is a clue to the type of knowledge we have of our salvation. It’s not a metaphysical certainty (no doubt whatsoever), as Protestants believe, but a confident assurance, which is the Catholic belief.
This interpretation is further supported by the fact that John draws a parallel between our knowledge of salvation and our knowledge that God grants our requests. Based on our knowledge that God hears our prayers, John concludes in verse 15, “We know that we have obtained the requests made of him” (emphasis added). The Greek word for “know,” oida, is the same word John used in verse 13 when he spoke of Christians knowing they are saved.
Now, do we have absolute certitude that God will grant our requests? Of course not! Anybody who has ever petitioned God for something knows we don’t get everything we ask for. The knowledge we have of God answering our petitions is one of confidence and not metaphysical certainty.
Similarly, our knowledge that we are saved is one of confident assurance and not absolute certitude. As St. Paul says, “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted” (1 Cor. 4:4). Paul is confident he is free from the guilt of mortal sin and thus in a state of grace, but refrains from making a definitive judgment on the matter. If Paul doesn’t think he can make a definitive judgment on the state of his soul, then why should we think we could do so for ours?
The only way I could be absolutely certain that I am currently in a state of grace or that I will persevere to the end and go to heaven is if God reveals it to me. But I haven’t found any passage in the Bible saying, “Karlo is in a state of grace” or “Karlo is going to heaven,” nor have I yet had any private visits from Jesus.
So, as it is regarding 1 John 2:27, to conclude John is affirming a Protestant belief in 1 John 5:13 is a misinterpretation of the text.
Conclusion
Catholics can rest assure that they don’t have to change their ways. There is no need to teach the old dog new tricks. John’s first letter was, is, and always will be a Catholic epistle written by a Catholic, to Catholics, within the context of a Catholic community.
Noah,” nice try. Actually the very verse says ” you have no need of a teacher” Your magesterium says you have absolute need of them as a teacher. So Noah, what part of no need of a teacher are you having problems with?! But you are aboulutely consistent with you church, reading something and teaching the opposite. Such as Romans 4:5 where Paul says God justifies a sinner who does not work by crediting his faith as righteousness and Rome saying ” to the one who works well to the end” and as a reward promised by God to be faithfully given to their works and merits. Ephessians 2:8 says saved as a gift nothing to do with works or ourselves, and your church saying its a direct reward of ourselves and our works. Im not sure that magesterium is doing you that much good Noah since it has an uncanny ability to interpret scipture in direct opposition to the bible. It might behoove you to listen to John. K
As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him (1 John 2:27, emphasis added).
Christians have the anointing of the Spirit and so do not need to be taught! As long as we remain in Jesus, the Spirit teaches us directly all that we need to know. Now, how was I to respond to this objection to being taught by the authority of the Church?
Today’s Gospel lesson seems to lead in the same direction: “As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.”
Surely, St. John’s words are true, as is indeed what Christ tells us: we are not teachers, but rather we have one teacher, and all the rest are equals and brothers. God’s word does not err. So what could it mean that we do not need anyone to teach us and that we ourselves should not claim to be teachers of others, since all Christians are equal?
The question of what it means to teach and to be taught is an ancient one that goes back a long way into the Greek philosophical tradition and was of great interest to the early Fathers of the Church. Not surprisingly, it is St. Thomas Aquinas again, in his wonderful commentary on St. Matthew’s Gospel, who brings the whole tradition together. Commenting on this Sunday’s passage, he says:
What does he intend to say here? He means that that one is strictly speaking a teacher who has his teaching from himself and does not simply diffuse to others what has been handed on to him by someone else. Thus only one is the teacher, namely God, whose teaching is strictly his own. Others are “teachers” only as ministers of his teaching. . . . How can a man know that his teaching is not his own? It is very clear when he notices that it is not in his power to make others understand his teaching as he wills, but cannot. No, rather, only God can do that, who alone can enlighten the heart.
The light of our understanding is a gift implanted in us by God. He is the only one to whom our knowledge can be radically traced back, whether it is natural knowledge or the supernatural knowledge of faith. From him we have the fundamental power to know the being of things, their unity, their identity with themselves, and their difference from everything else. These things cannot be taught by anyone but the Creator of our nature—indeed, they are the very conditions of the possibility of knowledge.
Just as a physician does not give us the nature that works in us to cure us under his care, so our human teachers do not give us the deep, basic knowledge that enables us to receive their help, the light of our intelligence and reason. This is simply a gift of God the creator. All our human teachers do is indicate by examples and words what is already implied in our basic understanding of reality. We need their practical direction, but they do not give us the basic ability to know, just as, again, physicians work with our bodily powers to bring forth the healthy processes that are already there without creating these processes.
Deep in our soul, in the least knowledge we have, is a gift that only God can give and that we are using all the time, even in the least kinds of every day knowledge we have. This is all the more marvelous when we consider that, in addition to all the natural knowledge we have or can have, we also have what Jesus has revealed to us about himself and about his Father and their Holy Spirit—and about ourselves.
We realize even more deeply that we know things that no one could ever teach us, only God. Thus, the Magisterium of the Church simply directs the hearts of those who have the Christian faith already infused in them by God’s grace at baptism. The teachers of the Church simply indicate to us by examples and words, by signs, the meaning of the mysteries of faith that are already implanted in our souls.
How great, then, is the dignity of each Christian, even the simplest believer of whom it can be said that he does not need to be taught, since the grace of faith, the anointing, remains in him! No wonder St. Thomas tells us in his commentary on the Apostles’ Creed that, because of the grace of the faith, the least little old lady, with no education, has more wisdom than all the philosophers of the Greek world. They wondered what it was to teach and to learn, but we have the Teacher and his word dwelling in our very hearts.
How wonderful, then, to be a Catholic and to have both the indwelling Spirit and the teaching of the Church!
Noah,
You’ve posted wholesale from this article:
Fr. Hug Barbour, O. Praem. “Is the Believer Unteachable?” (2017-11-05)
In this article is this curious statement:
This analogy just doesn’t work. The Pope in Rome is not a physician who is merely working with the natural spiritual processes inherent in each person. That’s not even how medicine works.
This is a rather simplistic and incorrect understanding of how medicine works. A great many medical interventions go beyond merely bringing forth natural biological processes. Medication and surgery are two pertinent examples, but not the only ones.
Consider, for example, laser eye surgery. The process for fixing the lens involves reshaping the lens with a laser. It has next to nothing to do with curing us using natural processes. Indeed, the natural processes are a hindrance to the corrective action being taken.
Here we see the core Roman Catholic Axiom hard at work.
The tradition “is an ancient one” that “was of great interest to the early Fathers of the Church.” Thomas Aquinas wrote in the 13th century. To put it mildly, that’s not an “early father of the church.”
It is, shall we say, not logically valid to presume what the early church taught by referencing what the later church believed. That is circular.
Noah ” but i havent any verse saying ” Karlo is going to heaven” well John comes to the aid of the Protestant with true belief 1 John 5:13″ i write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life” how thankful can the true believer who holds the bible as infallible and ultimate authority be for John’s faithfulness to communicate God’s securities to us. But you point out something very important and sad that an RC has to wait his whole life of sevice to his church to see if he gets to go to purgatory. The bible calls the gospel good news and Paul says in Romans 1:16 that it alone is the power for salvation to all who believe, and yet your church tells you only they can tell you you are saved. You said ” nor have i yet had any private visits from Jesus” well Karlo what does that say to you in light of Paul saying ” Christ in you the hope of glory” Christians have Christ in their heart and in communion with him all the time thru his Spirit and have the assurance of salvation from his Spirit and his word. Romans 10:9,10 says the direct result of confessing and believing is salvation and justification. Thats complete assurance. K
For starters, this understanding of the epistle’s purpose is questionable. After all, John makes many other “purpose statements” early on and throughout this epistle. For example, he says, “We are writing this so that our joy may be complete” (1:4) and, “I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin” (2:1). Six additional reasons appear in verses 2:12-14. Thus, it is not at all clear that 5:13 serves as a definitive purpose statement or even that “these things” refers to the entire epistle (and not just the preceding verses).
But even if it is John’s definitive purpose statement, the verse does not necessarily support the assurance of salvation that many take it to be affirming.
In fact, if 1 John 5:13 is taken to be the purpose of the epistle, the idea that it affirms assurance of future salvation based on present belief is actually more difficult to sustain. Limiting “this” (RSV) or “these things” (NABRE) to belief in this passage is impossible given what we see in the rest of the epistle.
It is often difficult to remember that verse numbers, paragraphs, chapters, and section headings are not part of the original biblical text. This makes it is easy to miss a passage’s larger context, which can strongly bear on its proper interpretation. When the entirety of John’s letter is taken into consideration, “these things” turn out to include not only belief (3:23) but a number of other conditions such as:
Walking in the light (1:7).
Not sinning (2:1 cf. 3:6-9 and 5:18).
Keeping Jesus’ commandments (2:3).
Walking as Jesus walked (2:6).
Not loving the world (2:15).
Abiding in the Son and in the Father (2:24-28).
Helping our brothers (3:17).
Loving in deed and in truth (3:18).
Testing the spirits to see whether they are of God (4:1).
Loving one another (4:7-21).
Having the Son (5:11).
A life of Christian faithfulness seems to be in view here, not merely a present state of belief.
Concerning belief, it is important to note that, grammatically, the word in 5:13 is used to identify the epistle’s recipients (“you who believe in the name of the Son of God”), not to indicate a condition for assured salvation. John could just as well have said, “I write these things to you who live in Asia Minor that you may know that you have eternal life.” Of course no one would argue from such a statement that living in Asia Minor guarantees eternal life! But grammatically it would be the same. Rather than asserting that present belief assures final salvation, 5:13 points those who believe to things (found throughout the epistle) that can assure them of their eternal life. That is not the same thing.
Further, even if belief is taken as the condition for eternal life (cf. 1 John 5:10), the word is in the present tense (so is “have”). Believing in the name of the Son of God may very well guarantee having eternal life, but this does not mean that belief cannot later cease. Even when eternal life is considered quantitatively (as never-ending; John 10:28) rather than qualitatively (as knowing God; John 17:3), that does not thereby make it a condition that cannot be lost. Present assurance (which is all 1 John 5:13 can be said to indicate) is no promise of future assurance. The verse simply does not assert anything about one’s final salvation (unless “final salvation” is assumed to be synonymous with “eternal life”—but that remains to be proven).
We should also recognize that even if present belief is a condition for assurance of eternal life, it is a subjective (personal) issue. John says he writes “so that you may know that you have eternal life.” He does not say, “so that you may know someone else has eternal life.” Thus, even if belief were all that was necessary to attain this future confidence (which is not what this passage indicates), we still would only have hypothetical knowledge of someone else’s salvation. (i.e., If they believe, then they have eternal life.) And again, even this would say nothing of their future assurance.
Of course, very few of these subjective conditions are open to easy assessment, even for ourselves. Do we really know that we are walking with Jesus? Acting righteously? Loving our brothers and not the world? Who can confidently say they’ve stopped sinning? And if these things are difficult for us to know about ourselves, how much more careful should we be when assuring others (whose hearts we cannot know)?
Even if John did write his first epistle to communicate assurance of future salvation to ourselves and others (none of which is demanded by the text), such assurance is not said to be based on belief alone—nor is such assurance said to be permanent. By the time we reach 1 John 5:13, the author has cited numerous conditions of eternal life that are difficult to assess even personally, much less concerning anyone else.
To use 1 John 5:13 to assure others that they have eternal life (or that they will keep it) is therefore unwarranted. Better to simply do what John says: see for yourself! Read the scriptures so that you may know if you have eternal life (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5). Then remember that “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9 cf. John 20:23 and Matthew 18:18).
In the passage in question, St. Paul writes:
[B]ecause, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. (Rom. 10:9–10)
Some Christians cites this passage to support their belief that all you need to do is sincerely accept Jesus Christ one time and that your eternal salvation is guaranteed. This doctrine regarding the assurance of salvation is popularity referred to as “Once Saved/Always Saved.”
However, as Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch note in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible—New Testament, a close analysis of this passage illustrates that St. Paul is teaching something else. He is making a connection between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, basically providing an interpretive paraphrase of Deuteronomy 30:11–14 in Romans 10:5–8, and then he teaches further in Romans 10:9–10 by explicating the citation from Deuteronomy 30 which he gives in Romans 10:8.
This becomes clearer in comparing Deuteronomy 30:12–14 and Romans 10:6–10:
“For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.” (Deut. 30:11–14)
Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it. But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach); because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. (Rom. 10:6–10)
As Hahn and Mitch comment regarding Romans 10:6–8 and 10:10:
10:6–8 An interpretive paraphrase of Deut. 30:12–14. Moses contends that Israel could not escape responsibility for obeying the word of God, as though the Torah were somewhere beyond its reach. In the spirit of Moses, Paul insists that Israel cannot escape responsibility for obeying the word of the gospel, as though it were forced to look high and low for Christ. On the contrary, Israel cannot plead ignorance because the gospel has come to its doorsteps through the Scriptures and the missionary efforts of the Church.
10:10 “his heart . . . his lips” Paul connects these with the inward conviction (heart) and outward confession (lips) of faith in Jesus. The images are drawn from the Deuteronomy quote [paraphrase] in Rom. 10:8. (p. 271)
In Deuteronomy 30, Moses goes on to affirm that the Israelites have to obey the Old Covenant law. They have to live that law:
See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you this day, that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land which you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess (Deut. 30:15–18).
Similarly, earlier in Romans, St. Paul affirms that good works in Christ play a crucial role in our salvation. We certainly cannot earn our salvation. But St. Paul makes clear that we accept or reject the divine gift of salvation by the life choices we make:
Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality (Rom. 2:4–11, emphasis added).
What St. Paul teaches harmonizes with Jesus’s teaching in John 8:31–32 about what being a faithful disciple entails, and also with what Jesus teaches in dealing with and discussing the rich young man (see Matt. 19:16–26).
Noah, its just amazing that according to you the bible I s so vague, a believer cant understand a plain statement. 5:13″ i write to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life” this is a clear and simple statement that those who believe can know they have eternal life. You said ” the idea that it supports assurance in present belief”but thats excatly what John says. You dont needva magesterium to tell you what John means. Its a clear statement that those who believe can KNOW they have eternal life. Incidentally your magesterium doesnt have an official position on that verse so it does you no good. If a believer cant be clear on that verse as you say then why did he write it to his congregation, believers. Notice he isnt writing that to leaders, but believers. The thread that runs thru all your lengthy posts here is uncertainty. Karlo cant know anything really. Why? Because Karlo is Roman Catholic and thats what he has been taught. What a sad way to live. How is that good news? John says to believers you can be certain that you posess eternal life. You said you cant be sure based on present belief, but yet he was telling his congregation at that present time and he did not qualify it. He didnt say you can know just for now, or you can know at your final justification, he said you if you believe you can be certain. God gives assurance to those who believe, thats the clear and reading of that verse. I dont need your magesterium to understand that clear verse. God’s word is clear.
Noah, i missed your statemrnt ” we certainly cannot earn our salvation. But St Paul makes clear that we accept or reject the divine gift of salvation by the life choices we make.” The nature of a gift is it isnt conditional. We didnt earn it nor do we deserve it. If i gave you a watch and you paid me for it it would no longer be a gift. Thats how it is with God, he gives us the free gift of eternal life free thru belief, we didnt earn it, nor do we deserve it. Your system in the Roman Catholic church is in direct opposition the gospel of scripture. The Roman Catholic gospel of go out and do your part thru gracious merit. Here is how it works, you do and then God gives you grace. The more you do, the more God gives you grace. Thats law!!! The true gospel its opposite, God gives us grace and we do. Thats unmerited favor, thats grace. Its unconditional and it comes by faith alone in Christ alone. Your statement again” but St Paul makes clear that we accept or reject the divine gift of salvation by the life choices we make” Im sorry Paul never says that. He says the opposite in 2:8 saying salvation is a gift apart from our works and ourselves. Its clear. There isnt a virtue tied to faith that merits the acceptance of God. You are in a false system of salvation, sacramental efficacy. As Tim Kauffman once told me Roman Catholicism is simply a recapitulation of the sacrifices under the law. Those can save no one. Thx k
Noah” but he in no way hints at justification by faith alone” well lets look at your claim. 5:1 therefore having been ( past tense) justified by faith we have peace with God. With Paul justification is ALWAYS past tense. We arent in a cease fire, we have peace with God beacause Christ’s righteousness has been transfered to us 5:19 thru belief. There is no such thing as a final justification based on the life lived as your synagogue teaches. He again says that in 8:1 there is NOW no condemnation ( same word for justification) there is now justification for those in Christ. In fact 5:10 says we will be saved by HIS life, not ours. You have a faulty understanding of the lww Noah. Paul is always talking about the whole law, its a WHOLE. Sometimes he says works of law, sometimes works, sometimes law. Nothing we do justifies us.
Romans 5:1 is a favorite verse for those who hold to the doctrine commonly known as “once saved, always saved”: “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This text is believed to indicate that the justification of the believer in Christ at the point of faith is a one-time completed action. For the once saved–always saved believer, all sins are forgiven immediately—past, present, and future. The believer then has, or at least, can have, absolute assurance of his justification regardless of what may happen in the future. Nothing can separate the true believer from Christ—not even the gravest of sins. Similarly, with regard to salvation, Ephesians 2:8-9 says: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast.”
For the Protestant, these texts seem plain. Ephesians 2 says the salvation of the believer is past—perfect tense, passive voice in Greek, to be more precise—which means a past completed action with present, ongoing results. In other words, it’s over. And if we examine again Romans 5:1, the verb justify is in a simple past tense (Greek Aorist tense). And this use is in a context where St. Paul had just told these Romans: “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’” (Rom. 4:3).
Righteousness is a synonym for justice or justification. How does it get any plainer than that? Abraham was justified once and for all when he believed. Not only is this proof of sola fide, says the Calvinist, but it is proof that justification is a completed transaction at the point the believer comes to Christ. The paradigm of the life of Abraham is believed to hold indisputable proof of the Reformed position.
Find a church near me and search mass times on Catholic.com.
Continue in the Grace of God
The Catholic Church actually agrees with this interpretation, at least on a couple of points. First, as baptized Catholics, we can agree that we have been justified and we have been saved. Thus, in one sense, our justification and salvation is in the past as a completed action. The initial grace of justification and salvation we receive in baptism is a done deal. And Catholics do not believe we were partially justified or partially saved at baptism. Catholics believe, as Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21, “Baptism… now saves you…” Ananias said to Saul of Tarsus, “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). That means the new Christian has been “washed… sanctified… [and] justified” as 1 Corinthians 6:11 remarks. That much is a done deal; thus, it is entirely proper to say we “have been justified” and we “have been saved.” However, this is not the end of the story. Scripture reveals that through this justification and salvation the new Christian experiences in baptism, he enters into a process of justification and salvation requiring his free cooperation with God’s grace. If we read the very next verses of our above-cited texts, we find the writer telling us there is more to the story.
Romans 5:1-2 states, “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.”
This text indicates that after having received the grace of justification, we now have access to God’s grace by which we stand in Christ, and we can then rejoice in the hope of sharing God’s glory. That word hope indicates that what we are hoping for we do not yet possess.
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). Without a doubt, we must continue to work in Christ as Christians; it is also true that it is only by the grace of God we can continue to do so. But even more importantly, Scripture tells us this grace can be resisted. Second Corinthians 6:1 tells us that “Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.”
St. Paul urged believers in Antioch—and all of us by implication—”to continue in the grace of God.” Indeed, Paul warns Christians that they can “fall from grace” in Galatians 5:4. This leads us to our next and most crucial point.
Future and Contingent
The major part of the puzzle that our Protestant friends are missing is that there are many biblical texts revealing justification to have a future and contingent sense as well as those that show a past sense. In other words, justification and salvation also have a sense in which they are not complete in the lives of believers. Perhaps this is most plainly seen in Galatians 5:1-5:
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness.
The Greek word used in verse 5 and here translated as righteousness is dikaiosunes, which can be translated either as “righteousness” or as “justification.” In fact, Romans 4:3, which we quoted above, uses a verb form of this same word for justification. Now the fact that St. Paul tells us we “wait for the hope of [justification]” is very significant. As we said before, what is hoped for not yet possessed. It is still in the future. Romans 8:24 tells us “For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” The context of Galatians is clear: Paul warns Galatian Christians that if they attempt to be justified—even though they are already justified in one sense, through baptism, according to Galatians 3:27—by the works of the law, they will fall from the grace of Christ. Why? Because they would be attempting to be justified apart from Christ and the gospel of Christ. That they could not do! For “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8, cf. Gal. 5:19-21). “The flesh” is a reference to the human person apart from grace.
This example of justification being obtained in the future is not an isolated case. Numerous biblical texts indicate both justification and salvation to be future and contingent realities:
Romans 2:13-16: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified … on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.
Romans 6:16: Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness? (Greek dikaiosunen, “justification”)
Matthew 10:22: And you will be hated of all men for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.
Romans 13:11: For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.
1 Corinthians 5:5: You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Are Future Sins Forgiven?
The Calvinist interpretation of Romans 5:1 not only takes the verse out of context, but it leads to still other unbiblical teaching. As we mentioned above, at least from a Calvinist perspective, this understanding of Romans 5:1 leads to the untenable position that all future sins are forgiven at the point of saving faith. Where is that in the Bible? It’s not. First John 1:8-9 could not make any clearer the fact that our future sins will only be forgiven when we confess them: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
I should note here that many Calvinists—and many of those who may not be full-fledged Calvinists, but hold to the “once saved always saved” part of classic Calvinist doctrine—respond to this text by claiming that the forgiveness of sins John is talking about has nothing to do with one’s justification before God. This text only considers whether or not one is in fellowship with God. And this “fellowship with God” is interpreted to mean only whether or not one will receive God’s blessings in this life.
This position presents a problem. The context of the passage does not allow for this interpretation. In fact, if you look at verses 5-7, John says:
God is light and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him, while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:5-7)
This text makes clear that the “fellowship” spoken of is essential for us to 1) walk in the light as God is in the light, and 2) have our sins forgiven. If we are not in “fellowship,” according to verse 6, then we are in darkness. And if we are in darkness, we are not in God, “who is light and in him is no darkness” (5). Nothing in this text even hints at the possibility that you can be out of “fellowship” with God, but still go to heaven. That is, of course, unless you have that fellowship restored by the confession of your sins. This is precisely what verses 8 and 9 are all about.
The Example of Abraham
We can agree with our Calvinist friends that Romans 4:3 demonstrates Abraham to have been justified through the gift of faith he received from God. The Catholic Church acknowledges what the text clearly says: “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” referencing Genesis 15:6.
There is more to this text, however, than many of our Protestant friends know. While the Catholic Church agrees that Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15:6 as Paul said, we also note that Abraham was justified at other times in his life as well, indicating justification to have another.aspect to it. Again, there is a sense in which justification is a past action in the life of believers, but there is another sense in which justification is revealed to be a process as well.
Abraham was depicted as having saving faith in God long before Genesis 15:6. Abraham had already responded to God’s call in Genesis 12 with what is revealed to be saving faith, years before his encounter with the Lord in Genesis 15. In addition, Abraham is revealed to have been justified again in Genesis 22, years after Genesis 15, when he offered his son Isaac in sacrifice in obedience to the Lord.
Genesis 12:14: Now the Lord said to Abraham, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you…” So Abram went, as the Lord had told him. Compare Hebrews 11:6,8: And without faith it is impossible to please God… By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called… and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.
Genesis 15:4,6: “This man [a slave] shall not be your heir; your own son shall be your heir.” And [Abram] believed the Lord: and he reckoned it to him as righteousness. Compare Romans 4:3: For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
Genesis 22:15-17: And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendents as the stars of heaven… because you have obeyed my voice.” Compare James 2:21-22,24: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?… faith was completed by works… You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
The Bible tells us Abraham had faith way back in Genesis 12. And according to Hebrews 11:6-8, this was not a natural faith analogous to the faith the demons have (see James 2:19), but rather a supernatural and saving faith given as a gift from God. If Abraham was not justified until Genesis 15:6, how could he already have saving faith in Genesis 12? In addition, if Abraham was justified once and for all in Genesis 15:6, why did he need to be justified again in Genesis 22 according to James 2:21? The reason is simple: According to these texts, justification is revealed in Scripture to be a process rather than a mere one-time event.
Noah,
It would be easier if you would just link to your source, rather than copy and paste it wholesale. To wit:
Tim Staples, “It’s Not Over ’til It’s Over.” Catholic Answers (2017-12-01)
Peace,
DR
Derek, thanks for posting this brother. Staples in his retort describing jbfa and arguing against it says of the reformer’s position ” in other words its over” Jesus said ” it is finished” As the reformers said in Rome the gospel was seen as the enablement of the impious to be saved thru his obedience and the compensation for his lack, not realizing that Christ lived the law in our place and fufilled all righteousness and offers it as a gift. Hope u r well. K
Fruitfulness is the gospel’s normal and natural expectation. Being engrafted into Christ is to be fruitful, to “bear fruit.” Jesus curses the fig tree that bears no figs (Matt. 21:18-19). He even turns it into a parable (Luke 13:6-9): a landowner plants a fig tree, coming in vain for three years in search of fruit. But instead of succulent figs, he has a barren tree. After three years, he has no intention of keeping it: he even considers it to be cluttering up his garden, wasting good space. Only his vineyard worker’s entreaties earn the tree another year, while “I dig around it and manure it. If it bears fruit next year, well and good; if not, it will be cut down.” Even the extension carries an expectation: the tree should be fruitful.
This expectation permeates the Gospels. The “good” seed—the seed not trampled underfoot, eaten by the birds, burnt by the sun, or choked off by weeds—bears fruit. The harvest is different—thirty-, sixty-, or a hundredfold—but fruit is borne. The wheat and tares grow together, but there is a separation: the wheat, which produced fruit, goes to the barn, the tares, which produced nothing, go to the fire.
St. Paul had already made very clear in Romans 2:6-7 that good works are necessary for eternal life, at least in one sense:
For [God] will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life…
One of the problems in Rome St. Paul was dealing with was a very prominent heresy known to us today as the “Judaizer” heresy. Those attached to this sect taught belief in Christ and obedience to the New Covenant was not enough to be saved. One had to keep the Law of Moses, especially circumcision, in order to merit heaven.
The problem with this teaching, of course, is, among other things, according to Hebrews 7:11-12, the old law has passed away in Christ:
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further needtwould there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchiz’edek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
According to this text, the law of Moses had passed away with the advent of Christ. Moreover, according to St. Paul, Christians are under the new law, or “the law of Christ,” not the old.
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law — not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ — that I might win those outside the law (I Cor. 9:21).
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2).
This is not to say that we have now exchanged one list of rules for another and if we follow a list of rules, apart from grace, we can be saved. Absolutely not! Following the letter of the law, even the new law, cannot save because as St. Paul says in II Cor. 3:6:
[God] has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.
We are bound to follow “the law of Christ” as St. Paul said in I Cor. 9:21, but we must understand that we are saved by grace through the instruments of faith and obedience. That obedience includes keeping the Ten Commandments, but the keeping of the commandments is an instrument—a necessary instrument—through which the grace of God flows and keeps us in Christ, the principle of reward for us. Thus, we have to keep the commandments to be saved, but we understand it is only through grace that we can do so.
At any rate, there is a great description of what was happening in the early church with these “Judaizers” in Acts 15:1-2:
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Notice the emphasis on “circumcision” and the law of Moses? St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans is steeped in responses to the positions of these same “Judaizers.” It becomes obvious St. Paul has them in mind when he says in Romans 2:28-29:
For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal…
It is very interesting to note that this same St. Paul would tell us that the true “circumcision of Christ” is New Covenant baptism in Colossians 2:11-12.
At any rate, it is in the context of dealing with the “Judaizers” that St. Paul says we are “justified by faith apart from the works of law.” He did not eliminate works as necessary for salvation in any sense. He specified the works of law because these were the very works without which the Judaizers were claiming a person “cannot be saved.”
Objection!
At this point our Protestant friends may point out that Romans 4:5 does not specify “works of law.” It simply says, “to him who does not work, but believes…” And even more, what do you do with Romans 7:6-7 where St. Paul uses the ninth and tenth commandments as his example of “the law” that has passed away and cannot save? This is talking about “the Ten Commandments!” Would the Catholic Church say the Ten Commandments have passed away with the advent of Christ?
But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
How do we respond? First, it is true that St. Paul does not say works of law in Romans 4:5. But the context makes it very clear that St. Paul was referring to circumcision in particular and the same “works of law” he was referring to in Romans 3:28. Romans 3:28 down to Romans 4:5 represents one continuous thought in answering the Judaizers and their insistence upon circumcision and keeping the Old Covenant in order to be saved.
When it comes to Romans 7:6-7, we need to go a bit deeper in our response. St. Paul does use the ninth and tenth commandments as examples of “law” that cannot save us. St. Paul is using the example of the “Judaizers” to teach all of us a deeper truth about the nature of justification and works. The works that justify us (as we saw in Romans 2:6-7) are works done in Christ. When the “Judaizers” were insisting a return to the Old Covenant was necessary for salvation, they were, in essence, saying Christ and the New Covenant are not enough. And in so doing, they were ipso facto rejecting Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” The “Judaizers” were attempting to be justified apart from Christ. St. Paul’s main emphasis is that we can only perform salvific acts in Christ! If we are not “in Christ”, even our outwardly “righteous deeds” will never and can never merit eternal life.
In other words, the law, whether old or new, cannot save us apart from the grace of Christ. In fact, St. Paul goes beyond declaring the keeping of the law alone cannot save us. He even says, in I Cor. 13:3:
If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Sola Gratia
The truth is, it is the grace of Christ alone that saves us by our cooperating with that grace in fulfilling the “law of Christ.” This is precisely what St. Paul teaches in Galatians 3:2-3, 5:2-6. And take note how he writes concerning these same “Judaizers:”
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 with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh… (5:2) Now I Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness (Gr. dikaiosune—justification). For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.
Notice St. Paul’s emphasis on our being in grace and our working through the Spirit and in Christ in order to remain in Christ. Back in Romans, St. Paul said very similarly.
Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2)
In Romans 6:16, St. Paul goes on to tell us that after baptism (cf. Romans 6:3-4) obedience to Christ (that means good works!) leads us to justification while sin (that means bad works!) will lead us to death:
Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death (Gr.—eis thanaton, “unto death”), or of obedience, which leads to righteousness (Gr.—eis dikaiosunen—unto justification).
Notice: St. Paul makes it very clear. Obedience leads to justification and eternal life while sin leads to eternal death (see also Romans 6:23). Thus, St. Paul’s emphasis is not just on works, but works done in and through the power of Christ. In Romans 8:1-14, St. Paul tells us in no uncertain terms that we must be in Christ and continuing to live our lives in Christ in order to do works that please God.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus… who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit… and those who are in the flesh cannot please God… So, then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh – for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.
The key, again, is to remember St. Paul is emphasizing our continuing in Christ, or, in his grace or “kindness.” In Romans 11:22, he says it this way:
Note then the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.
Just so no one would get the wrong idea of what St. Paul was saying, it seems, he put it plain and simple in Galatians 5:19-21 and 6:7-9. There is no way we can get “justification by faith alone” that excludes works as necessary for justification in any and every sense if we read these texts carefully. St. Paul makes clear that if Christians allow themselves to be dominated by their “flesh,” or lower nature, they will not make it to heaven.
Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God… (6:7) Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption (eternal death); but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.
Here St. Paul teaches that through good works, or continuing to “sow to the Spirit,” we will be rewarded with eternal life, but only if we persevere.
Works in Ephesians 2:8-9:
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast.
Once again, context is going to be key. In verses 4-6 St. Paul had just said:
But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ… and raised us up with him…
Here St. Paul is talking about the initial grace of salvation or justification by which we Christians were raised from death unto life. The Catholic Church teaches in agreement with Scripture that this initial grace of salvation is entirely and absolutely unmerited.
My heavens, the Catholic Church baptizes babies! What more could she do to demonstrate this truth! What kind of works could a newborn baby have done to merit anything?
However, once that baby grows up and reaches the age of accountability, he must begin to “work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in [him], both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12-13). Or, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 2:10—the very next verse after Eph. 2:8-9:
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
St. Paul is in no way eliminating works in any sense, to be necessary for salvation; he is simply pointing out what the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years: there is nothing anyone can do before they enter into Christ that can justify them. But once a person enters into Christ… it’s a whole new ballgame (see Phil. 4:13; Rom. 2:6-7; Gal. 6:7-9, etc.).
In the final analysis, I believe the text that is about as plain as any text could be concerning works and justification is James 2:24—that is, it is about as plain as can be in telling us both that “faith alone” is insufficient for our justification, and that “works” are indeed necessary. Are we justified by faith? Certainly! By faith alone? No way! It’s both faith and works, according to Scripture.
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Jesus says it similarly. Are we saved by faith in Jesus? Certainly! John 11:25:
I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.
Are we saved by faith alone? No way! As we saw before, in Matthew 19:16-19, Jesus himself said to a rich young man who had asked him what he needed to do to have eternal life:
… If you would enter life, keep the commandments… You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Or, how about Matthew 12:36-37? Here, Jesus says:
I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
That sounds like there is more to this justification thing than faith alone.
Noah,
Your comment is once again (the third time?) plagiarized—directly lifted—from other sources. This time it is John M. Grondelski “Fertility Is Not A Curse” (2024-06-20) and Tim Staples “Are Good Works Necessary For Salvation” (2015-04-30). Engaging in (apparently) dishonest behavior undermines everything you are trying to suggest. It is bad fruit.
Perhaps you could come up with your own thoughts rather than stealing them from others? Consequently, I will only respond to this:
There is a serious error here, as the seed is the preaching of the Word of God. To bear fruit is to make more seeds, for that is what seeds are, the fruit.
So how is one fruitful through making more seeds? By preaching the Word of God and making disciples. It is in this way that the seeds—the Word of God—are spread in a fruitful way. They must take residence in new hearts.
Being fruitful is a combination of receiving the Word of God and being evangelical.
Peace,
DR
Noah ” notice obedience leads to justification and eternal life” Paul ” therefore HAVING BEEN justified by faith we have peace with God. The Apostle Paul says exactly opposite of Noah and his synagogue, justification isn’t future based on our obedience, it is past based on Christ’s obedience alone. That’s why 4:5 says justification is available only to sinful man who does not work but believes. ” to the one who does not work” ” but believes in Him who justifies the UNGODLY” So Noah says justification in his synagogue comes at the end of obedience, and Paul says it come to the ungodly man who does not work but believes. Who are we to believe Noah and his church, or Paul?
Everyone “knows” plagiarism is bad, but no one can provide a coherent explanation why. Some people say plagiarism defrauds the reader. Give me a break. Readers don’t care, or if they do, it’s only because they’ve been browbeaten into believing plagiarism is wrong. Others say plagiarism is like stealing. But no one owns ideas, and no one should own the words we use to express them, either.
I’ll be blunt. The plagiarism police are just intellectual landlords, demanding rent in the form of attribution. And plagiarism rules are just a sneaky way for authors to claim de facto ownership of ideas, while cloaking themselves in false virtue. When the plagiarism police cry, “J’accuse!,” we should respond with a raspberry.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to attribution. In fact, attribution is great, so long as it’s voluntary, rather than mandatory.
In the case of Jesus and the fig tree, the symbolism of Jesus’ action should have made immediate sense, for before cursing the fig tree Jesus gave the Parable of the Fig Tree, making the symbolic meaning clear (Luke 13:6-9):
And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Lo, these three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down; why should it use up the ground?’ And he answered him, ‘Let it alone, sir, this year also, till I dig about it and put on manure. And if it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”
This imagery is nothing new. As the prophet Isaiah declared, “[T]he vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting; and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry!” (Isa. 5:7).
Jesus gave the parable of the fig tree “on his way through towns and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem” (Luke 13:22), and it’s at the culmination of this journey that we see him cursing the fig tree. Here’s how St. Mark describes the scene:
On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it. [….] As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said to him, “Master, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered” (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21).
The fig tree isn’t a moral agent. It’s not self-aware. And it’s not being punished. Rather, the fig tree is an obvious reference to Israel’s spiritual sterility. You may have noticed an ellipsis in the above passage: that’s because between Jesus cursing the fig tree and Peter remarking on it the next day, Jesus went into Jerusalem and drove the money-changers out of the temple while saying “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17). Rather than interrupting the cursing of the fig tree, this action draws out its meaning more clearly: judgment is being visited upon Israel, and particularly Jerusalem.
It would be easy to view this simply as judgment upon fruitless Israel, but Jesus makes clear that the lesson also applies to each one of us. At the Last Supper, he put it in these terms:
I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned (John 14:1-6).
Spiritual fruitfulness is required in the Christian life. Like a bicycle that either moves forward or falls over, there’s no place for stagnant spirituality. In the parable of the talents, the spiritually sterile Christian is depicted as an unprofitable “worthless servant” and cast out of paradise (Matt. 25:30). We are called to abide in Christ, and through him, to bear much fruit.
This leaves one mystery. Mark specifies that Jesus “found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs” (Mark 11:13). But if that’s the case, why curse the fig tree? St. Josemaría Escrivá understood it this way: “Don’t tell me you have excuses. It availed the fig tree little, relates the Evangelist, that it was not the season for figs when our Lord came to it to look for them.” By way of further explanation, he said:
Our Lord comes to pick [figs], knowing full well that he won’t find any at this time of year. However, when the tree proves to be barren in spite of its apparent fertility and luxuriant leaves, Jesus commands, “Let no man ever eat fruit of yours hereafter.”
Hard words, indeed! May you never more bear fruit! How must the disciples have felt, especially if they considered that it was the Wisdom of God who had thus spoken? Jesus curses the fig tree because in it he has found only the appearance of fruitfulness — many leaves. Let this be a lesson to us. There is no excuse for being unproductive. Some might say “I don’t know enough…” But that is no excuse. Or else, “I am unwell, I haven’t much talent, the conditions are not right, my surroundings…” These aren’t excuses either. How pitiful the man who adorns himself with the foliage of a false apostolate, who has all the outward appearance of leading a fruitful life, but is not sincerely attempting to yield fruit!
Everyone who neglects to bear spiritual fruit can point to some excuse: I’m not a priest or religious; I don’t know the Faith well enough; I’m not a good enough person; my friends don’t want to hear about the faith; I’m too busy right now, etc. Each of us can find some reason why it’s not our season to flourish, why we should wait until later. In cursing a tree that also seemed to have an “excuse” for not flourishing, Jesus is showing us what he thinks of this excuse-making.
This also explains why both Matthew and Mark specify that the tree was a fig tree with “nothing on it but leaves only” (Matt. 21:19). The first mention of fig leaves in Scripture is back in the Garden of Eden. At the moment of the Fall, “the eyes of both [Adam and Eve] were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3:7). This is where we get the English idiom fig leaf, referring to “something that conceals or camouflages, usually inadequately or dishonestly.”
Oh, and here’s the cite: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-does-jesus-curse-the-fig-tree
I did, in my comment.
Noah,
I have no interest in refuting an endless series of articles that do not (and cannot) address the specific points that I’ve raised. That’s a one-side discussion, so I’m bowing out.
Peace,
DR
Noah,
Your source says:
What is the future “righteousness” that is to come?
Your source gives these suggestions:
(1) The declaration given during the Final Judgment: a “Not Guilty” verdict. (Romans 2)
(2) Resurrection into a new body of spiritual flesh (after death). (Romans 13)
(3) One who is saved from—not destroyed by—the lake of fire. (Matthew 10; Romans 6)
But what did your source say was most plainly seen in Galatians 5?
The problem is that these biblical texts do not indicate a justification or salvation that are contingent on a future word or deed. All of them represent an external event that must still take place chronologically in the future (i.e. we “eagerly await” it) but whose outcome is completely assured (i.e. trust and ‘hope‘ in Galatians 5:5), a foregone conclusion.
Let’s pause and examine Galatians 5:5 more closely. The phrase is the “Genitive of Apposition”, and so is understood as “the hope, that is, righteousness.” Both nouns refer to the same thing. Thus the righteousness (or justification if you prefer) spoken of are in the same sense as the hope, which indicates “a done deal.”
Your source has misplaced the nature of the contingency. While your source is correct that salvation is contingent (i.e. it has not yet completely taken place temporally), it is incorrect in saying that the fact of salvation (i.e. whether or not one has already been saved or justified) is contingent.
Thus, your source does not support the claim that is being made.
Peace,
DR
Their break with Christ does not mean they can’t repent. Paul says, “You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?” (Gal. 5:7), but “I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine” (Gal. 5:10). Why would Paul issue a warning about falling if there were nothing of substance to lose (see 1 Cor. 10:11-12)? Lest anyone wonder, after the possibility of his own rejection (1 Cor. 9:26-27), Paul goes on to speak about idol worship and how those who partake of the cup and table of demons cannot have fellowship with the Lord (1 Cor. 10:14-22).
Later in Galatians 5, Paul affirms the importance of good works in our salvation, as certain sins for which we don’t repent will exclude us from inheriting the kingdom (Gal. 5:19-21).
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Did I say that there was nothing of substance that would be lost if they failed? To wit:
A man can fail and suffer loss while still being saved. What is it he has lost? His works. What has he retained? His salvation.
Wouldn’t you agree?
That’s an error of mistaking correlation for causation.
What excludes one from inheriting the kingdom is a rejection of the kingdom for other things, as in the Parable of the Sower (see: “Justification by Works“). Tim notes:
…
…and…
In Galatians 5, which describe men who live by specific acts of the flesh (i.e. not the spirit). Which soil would you associate with living by those acts of the flesh?
” according to these textsc, justification is a process ” 5:1″ therfore HAVING BEEN justified by faith we have shalom withbGod” its in the aorist past tense. How could we have peace if it were a process? 5: 9 therefore we have now been justified by his blood” with Paul justification is always past tense and finished. It is not the process of sanctification. In fact 3:20 says now apart from the law. Nothing we do justifies us. 5:10 says we will be saved only by his life. Also daikaiousines and logizomai are acounting terms. Even Roman Catholic theologians like Brown concede this.
in Romans 3:20, he says, “Through the law comes knowledge of sin.” In other words, when Paul uses the word works he is talking about the Old Testament law.
A careful reading of Galatians will show that Paul is using works of the law to refer especially to the law of circumcision. He is so strong about this that he says in Galatians 5:2, “Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” Paul’s opponents in Galatia wanted to bring the Gentile Christians back into the Old Testament law. These are the works of the law that Paul is fighting against, and they have no place in our justification. Paul is saying in essence that Gentile Christians do not have to be circumcised and live like Jewish Christians in order to be saved.
” Paul is saying in essence that Gentile Christians …….in order to be saved” what you fail to understand that in Galatians Paul is talking about the whole law not being involved in justification. How do we know? The essential passage on the subject in Galatians 3 ( 3:10) he quotes from Deuteronmy which is adressing the WHOLE law. We see this confirmed in Romans 4:5 ” to the one WHO DOES NOT WORK”” but believes in him who justifies the UNGODLY” his faith is credited as righteousness.. Here Paul says Abraham was justified by faith as an ungodly man not because of his works but because of his faith. In your church its exactly opposite of scripture, God justifies, finally, a godly man who works.
Hi Tim, i hope you are well. I wanted to know if i could ask you this question. I thought i remembered reading you saying you do not ascribe to natural law theory? Here is my question( its killing me to understand this and ive done research and i actually agree i dont believe we learn anything by looking at mountains without God revealing that to us) but what is known by man Romans 1 is that general propositional revelation that God reveals thru what has been made, iow limited. And the the theories and formulas found in the world, science etc. which are believed to be true, can that not necessarily be trusted it isnt God revealed in scripture.? Here is my take if i understand Clark etc, God reveals everything propositionally thru his word since John 1 says all wisdom and knowledge are in Christ. Those truths can be deuced logically in context from scripture. Anything outside that cannot necessarily be trusted as truth?! If you have a minute and you dont mind, i know you’re busy so let me thank you ahead of time. God bless Kevin
Noah ” our Lord” on your diatribe on plagiarism you intimate that someone’s written work should be really everyone’s work. Here you assume that Our Lord means the Protestant Lord and the Roman Catholic Lord. But Proestants dont worship the same God as Roman Catholics. We dont worship the bread god of your altar as if it were the God of the universe. We worship God in Spirit and in truth as Jesus comanded us. The bread and wine of our altar are symbols of his body and blood. We dont worship the elements of the Lord’s supper. You might want to read an article here by Tim Kauffman called The ” Protty” Jesus. Its and article about a Roman Catholic writer who makes the claim himself we dont worship the same God.
Rom 12:1 Therefore I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.
Scripture teaches the act of worship is sacrifice. This is the difference between latria and dulia. Catholics do not offer sacrifice to Mary. That would be idolatry and definitely against Catholic teaching. Praying to, bowing, kneeling, genuflecting, writing poetry and other showings of respect are considered acts of veneration, not worship.
Certain Catholic authors have attributed many characteristics to Mary that are quite lofty, but not one has even come close to suggesting offering sacrifice to Mary. The Church teaches to worship God alone. Period.
The problem with your attempt to distinguish between latria and dulia is that the “dulia” that is offered to Mary is in fact the sacrifice that worship necessitates making it “latria.” The “sacrifice” that is offered to God is, according to the Catechism, supposed to be “to acknowledge, in respect and absolute submission, the ‘nothingness of the creature’ who would not exist but for God … to praise and exalt him and to humble oneself … confessing with gratitude that he has done great things and holy is his name” (paragraph 2097).
Roman Catholic “saints” have offered that “sacrifice” to Mary. Catholics are admonished to imitate the saints, and thus Catholics are taught to offer to Mary something that, if offered to God, would be considered a “spiritual sacrifice” of worship. Catholic “saints” did indeed “acknowledge, in respect and absolute submission, the “nothingness of the creature” who would not exist but for Mary, and to praise and exalt her and to humble oneself, confessing with gratitude that she has done great things and holy is her name.” Had such praise been directed to God, rather than to Mary, it would be considered a sacrifice of worship. It is no less “worship” or “sacrifice” on account of it being said of Mary. In fact, it rather proves our point: Roman Catholics worship Mary.