Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justified by Baptism (fallout from the Beckwith conversion grows)
Pontifications ^ | May 8, 2007 | Fr Alvin Kimel

Posted on 05/09/2007 10:01:17 AM PDT by NYer

Francis Beckwith’s announced return to the Catholic Church has generated an avalanche of invective and revilement from evangelicals. I have been stunned by what I have read. It is clear that in the minds of many the Catholic Church remains the hated Antichrist. To enter into her communion is to abandon the faith of the Apostles and to jeopardize one’s eternal salvation.

But some evangelicals have responded with sobriety and directed their reflections to the important theological differences between Catholicism and evangelicalism. Guy Davies, a Welsh Reformed preacher, identifies justification by faith as the crucial difference between the two traditions:

The Roman teaching on justification is that we are justified by grace at baptism. But this initial justification must be improved by our works. Does this understanding of justification really have greater ‘explanatory power’ than the Protestant view? Where in the New Testament is justification related to baptism? In the teaching of Paul, we are justified by faith apart from works. God’s declaration that we are right with him in Christ cannot be improved upon. The Roman Catholic teaching is not straightforward justification by works, because it is held that we are graciously justified at baptism. But the notion that our justification by grace must be supplemented by works is at best semi-Pelagian. The Catholic teaching downplays the seriousness of sin and calls into question the the freeness of God’s grace. Perhaps the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement (here) has had the effect of blurring the dividing lines between Rome and the Reformation over justification? The new perspective on Paul has had a similar effect.

Davies rightly notes that the Catholic Church teaches that sinners are justified by grace, decisively communicated to the person in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. But he asks, “Where in the New Testament is justification related to baptism?” Here we see the terrible reductionism of sola scriptura at work. Scripture is ripped from the eucharistic life of the Church and becomes a free-floating entity to which the beliefs and practices of the Church are then subjected according to alien hermeneutical criteria. For all within the eucharistic community the intrinsic connection between justification and baptism/Church is so manifest, so obvious, so clear, that no prooftexts from Scripture are needed. To be baptized is to be incorporated into the Church; to be incorporated into the Church is to be made a member of the body of Christ; to be made a member of the body of Christ is to be adopted as a son in the Son and regenerated in the Holy Spirit; to be adopted in sonship and regenerated in the Holy Spirit is to be elevated into the divine life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. St Augustine saw clearly the union of justification and theosis:

It is clear that He calls men gods through their being deified by His grace and not born of His substance. For He justifies, who is just of Himself and not of another; and He deifies, who is God of Himself and not by participation in another. Now He who justifies, Himself deifies, because by justifying He makes sons of God. For to them gave He power to become the sons of God. If we are made sons of God, we are also made gods; but this is by grace of adoption, and not by generation. (Ennar. In Ps. 49.2)

Life in the Church is life in the Holy Trinity, and this simply is our justification. If a person cannot see this when he reads the New Testament, there can be only one response: read it again but this time read it with the Church and her Eucharist. It might also be noted that significant advances along these lines have been made in Lutheran-Orthodox ecumenical discussions (see One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen).

But the New Testament is hardly silent on the relation of baptism and justification, though the relation between the two may not be as explicit and obvious as our evangelical brethren would like it to be. Peter Leithart notes two passages in particular:

At least twice, Paul makes a direction connection between baptism and justification. Having reminded the Corinthians that they had been the kind of people who do not inherit the kingdom, he goes on to remind them that they are no longer such people: “but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of God” (6:11). Is Paul taking about water baptism when he refers to “washing” or to some spiritual and invisible washing? I believe the former; the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” echoes the baptismal formulae of Matthew 28 and Acts, and the reference to the Spirit also links with baptismal passages (Acts 2; 1 Cor 12:12-13). This whole passage is in fact embedded in a baptismal formula: “you were washed . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Note too that Paul marks the shift from what the Corinthians “were” to what they “are” by a reference to their baptism. They have become different folk by being baptized. What, though, is the relationship between the baptism and sanctification and justification? The connection here is not absolutely clear, but I suggest that sanctification and justification are two implications of the event of baptism. The pagan Corinthians have been washed-sanctified-justified by their baptism into the name of Jesus and the concommitant action of the Spirit.

Romans 6:7 is another passage where Paul links baptism and justification. He who has died, Paul writes, is “justified from sin.” And when, in context, does one die? “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (vv. 3-4). Baptism into Christ means baptism into death; those who have been baptized have been crucified with Jesus; and those who are dead in and with Jesus have been justified from sin. Here, “justify” carries the connotation of deliverance from the power of sin. Through baptism, we die to our natural solidarity and society with Adam and brought into solidarity with and the society of Jesus.

I cite Leithart because he is a Reformed scholar. Lutheran, Anglican, and Catholic testimony could be quickly produced, but would also be just as quickly dismissed by evangelicals. Having recently re-read Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, I truly wonder how anyone can miss the union of justification and baptism. Do evangelicals stop at Roman 4:25? How can they not see that Paul’s discussion of justification in the first four chapters must be interpreted in light of Paul’s subsequent discussion of the death and resurrection of the believer in baptism and his rebirth in the Holy Spirit? They do not see, because they are reading their Bible through evangelical spectacles. There is a blindness that only the healing of Eucharist and the authentic teaching of the Church can cure.

In the conclusion of his short article, Leithart makes a turn which Martin Luther would have thoroughly approved:

There is a key difference between the Word declared in the gospel, and the declaration effected by baptism. The Word offers the favor of God generally; baptism declares that God favors me in particular. If baptism is not the public declaration of justification, where does that public declaration take place? Is it ever heard on earth, about me in particular? Is it heard anywhere but in my heart? … It appears to me that justification by faith and forensic justification are difficult to maintain apart from a strong view of baptismal efficacy, without saying that in baptism God Himself says something about me in particular.

I would want to significantly expand the relation between justification and baptism (Leithart would also, I’m sure), but this is a good place to begin. As soon as one sees the intrinsic connection between justification and baptism, the New Testament begins to read very differently. Perhaps Dr Beckwith had this in mind when he wrote on his blog: “Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries.”


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

1 posted on 05/09/2007 10:01:20 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Francis Beckwith’s announced return to the Catholic Church has generated an avalanche of invective and revilement from evangelicals.

This is throughout the blogosphere.

2 posted on 05/09/2007 10:03:01 AM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I must be in the wrong blogosphere. I never get any of this stuff. I guess I just don’t care that much who is church-jumping. It’s not like he’s going to win them the pennant now, is it?


3 posted on 05/09/2007 10:06:38 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Dave Armstrong: Salvation, Justification, Faith Alone. A list of Catholic discussions on this topic.
4 posted on 05/09/2007 10:14:22 AM PDT by Frank Sheed (Dead Ráibéad.... Lifelong Irish Papist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It’s really a shame, but perhaps in some way good will come of it.


5 posted on 05/09/2007 10:16:17 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Mr. Beckwith was a well respected Evangelical apologist. His decision to return to the Catholic Church of his youth has caused deep resentments in certain quarters. I can understand that feeling.

That is the nature of the post by NYer. No more, no less.

F


6 posted on 05/09/2007 10:24:54 AM PDT by Frank Sheed (Dead Ráibéad.... Lifelong Irish Papist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; NYer
I must be in the wrong blogosphere.

Ditto here. For that matter, I'd never even heard of the "Evangelical Theological Society" before this week, and I'm supposed to believe that the impact of Beckwith's conversion is equal to the Donut Repair Man's?

7 posted on 05/09/2007 10:27:48 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (FR Member Alex Murphy: Declared Anathema By The Council Of Trent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

See, I’ve heard of the Donut Guy.


8 posted on 05/09/2007 10:30:04 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Bump


9 posted on 05/09/2007 10:31:20 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
FR Member Alex Murphy: Declared Anathema By The Council Of Trent

I had no idea your were a Catholic (and thus subject to Catholic church discipline) in the 1560's, Alex.

When's your birthday? Would this be number 479 or 481? ;-)

Next week, change your tagline to FR member Alex Murphy, declared by Vatican Council II to be a 'separated brother' in possession of many of the helps to salvation instituted by Christ".

Well, okay, so that won't exactly fit, will it?

10 posted on 05/09/2007 11:23:21 AM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I think I have heard of him, and ran into him in an old Internet forum a while back.

If that is the gentleman I remember (and he may not be) then he might just become Eastern Orthodox next year.

11 posted on 05/09/2007 11:29:03 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
So they are willing to admit that their assurance of salvation can be lost by joining the Roman Catholic Church?

Well, I guess that's a start, kinda sorta.

12 posted on 05/09/2007 11:58:40 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Alex Murphy; ears_to_hear

Sorry,

We Proddies stopped listening at Trent when Rome denied salvation by Faith.

That’s when Rome became anathema, according to the church fathers...


13 posted on 05/09/2007 12:08:00 PM PDT by Gamecock (FR Member Gamecock: Declared Anathema By The Council Of Trent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Alex Murphy

The council of Trent is still doctrine in the Catholic church and no where do its words SPECIFY that only Former Catholics are to be damned .

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the fear of hell,-whereby, by grieving for our sins, we flee unto the mercy of God, or refrain from sinning,-is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and
disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

CANON XXII.-If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVIII.-If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Chris taught; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.


14 posted on 05/09/2007 1:40:25 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
So they are willing to admit that their assurance of salvation can be lost by joining the Roman Catholic Church? Well, I guess that's a start, kinda sorta.

No, it is sad because it means the man was a Tare and never saved.

15 posted on 05/09/2007 1:42:44 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear
No, it is sad because it means the man was a Tare and never saved.

But if it were not for such people, how could you thank God for not being like them?

16 posted on 05/09/2007 1:46:03 PM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
But if it were not for such people, how could you thank God for not being like them?

I am JUST like them and deserve exactly the same eternal fate as they do.

When I see the lost I thank God for Him loving and choosing me, because there is not one thing in me that makes me worthy of that salvation

17 posted on 05/09/2007 1:50:13 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear
Thank you for posting the entirety of the Decrees on Justification.

no where do its words SPECIFY that only Former Catholics are to be damned

  1. An anathema is a formal excommunication; only God has the power to damn someone. The penalty of "anathema" does not exist in canon law since 1983.
  2. Any textbook of canon law will tell you that canonical penalties only apply to those within the church. In fact, you'll also find that in texts of dogmatic theology like Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
  3. I'm always delighted to learn that you have enough time on your hands to attempt to become expert in the theology of my religion as well as that of your own. I find that I have very little time available to study Protestant theology, and need to spend my scarce free time studying the scriptures and learning to love the Lord. I hope you understand.

18 posted on 05/09/2007 2:14:16 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear
No, it is sad because it means the man was a Tare and never saved.

Who appointed you his judge?

19 posted on 05/09/2007 2:15:05 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Campion
An anathema is a formal excommunication; only God has the power to damn someone. The penalty of "anathema" does not exist in canon law since 1983. Any textbook of canon law will tell you that canonical penalties only apply to those within the church. In fact, you'll also find that in texts of dogmatic theology like Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
I'm always delighted to learn that you have enough time on your hands to attempt to become expert in the theology of my religion as well as that of your own. I find that I have very little time available to study Protestant theology, and need to spend my scarce free time studying the scriptures and learning to love the Lord. I hope you understand.

That is the current definition as given by Rome, not the original greek rendering which by usage at Trent says nothing about "excommunication

Trent was directed at many that were already "excommunicated" . They just wanted to add some hatred and curses on those that would follow Christ and not Rome

anathema
a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction a) a curse b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

As seen in its usage here

Act 23:14 And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.

And here

1Cr 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Your churches attempts to cover its ruthless hatred of the reformers is hollow

20 posted on 05/09/2007 2:25:46 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Who appointed Rome his savior?

The man may have had an intellectual consent to salvation by faith, but he never had a saving faith.You see his indecision in some of the waffling he does .

As to who called me to be his judge... the word of God

2Cr 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Cr 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them].
Eph 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

21 posted on 05/09/2007 2:34:23 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear
not the original greek rendering

It's a technical term of art, so the original Greek meaning is not relevant. There was, at the time of Trent, a formal liturgy for making someone "anathema".

Your churches attempts to cover its ruthless hatred of the reformers is hollow

LOL. Poor dears. As though the "reformers" didn't say far, far worse than that about Rome.

22 posted on 05/09/2007 2:36:05 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear
As to who called me to be his judge... the word of God

You need to read your Bible more carefully, then.

I think it's amusing that, on the one hand, you've condemned Dr. Beckwith to hell ...

while, on the other hand, you incorrectly accuse Trent of doing the same to the "reformers" and object to that and call it "hatred".

Right here, on the same thread, and you don't even see the breathtaking double standard that you're embracing. It's okay for you to damn Dr. Beckwith, but wrong for Trent to "damn" John Calvin?

If what Trent did is "hatred," then what you're doing is precisely the same.

LOL.

23 posted on 05/09/2007 2:40:27 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear

To those Protestants who express umbrage that the Catholic Church has supposedly “condemned them to Hell” by the standard formula “anathema sit” (let him be anathema) attached to the dogmatic decrees of Trent (and other General Councils), I say, CALM DOWN! No one has declared you damned! “Anathema sit” does NOT mean “let him be damned”, but rather “let him be cut off from fellowship, excommunicated”. The Catholic Church has never declared anyone damned. No one is damned until he reaches the judgment seat of Christ and is declared so by Christ. Until then, no man has the knowledge to say that someone is damned.
The standard formula that has been used for many centuries in defining a proposition P to be a dogma is “If anyone say that P is not true, let him be anathema”. That has the form of a sentence of excommunication for denying the proposition. But really, it is just a formula, that in effect means simply: “this is a heretical proposition.”
What all this illustrates is the inherent danger involved in the habit some Protestants have acquired of thinking that the meanings of texts are all obvious on their face and that anyone, however untutored, however inexpert, coming from whatever background, can immediately know the real meaning of any text he comes across. Well, maybe you don’t need a Catholic Church to tell you what a text in the Bible means, but you SURE DO need the Catholic Church to tell you what the Catholic Church means by the texts of her own decrees! It is pure silliness for a person who has very little knowledge of Catholic doctrine, canon law, etc. to start telling the Catholic Church what Catholic documents mean.
Besides which, the Catholic Church says that in order to commit a “mortal sin” (i.e. one that leads to damnation -—
see 1 John 5:16) a person has to (a) know that what he is doing is gravely sinful, and (b) do it freely. But the vast majority of Protestants are unaware that the Catholic Church has authority to condemn false doctrine, and so they do NOT know that in embracing those condemned doctrines they are doing anything wrong. So they are NOT necessarily committing mortal sin (according to the Catholic Church) by doing so. So the Church could NOT possibly declare them to be in “the state of mortal sin” and hence damned.

All this nonsense about how Trent “damned” Protestants is, frankly, ignorant nonsense. Catholics who read these claims about the Church “damning people” just laugh to themselves at the ignorance involved.


24 posted on 05/09/2007 2:40:50 PM PDT by smpb (smb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear

One other thing: To Catholics who say that the “anathemas” of Trent (or any other General Council) are somehow no longer in force: not so! Any doctrine that has been declared by a General Council with an “anathema” attached to its denial, is binding on the faithful for all time. But this nonsense about
‘anathema sit’ meaning “he is damned” is nonsense.


25 posted on 05/09/2007 2:50:15 PM PDT by smpb (smb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: smpb
The canons themselves are in force. The penalty of "anathema" doesn't exist in the 1983 CIC, so the anathema sit penalty clause is inoperative. But the errors condemned remain errors.
26 posted on 05/09/2007 2:52:19 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

Depends on what means by assurance. I find it assuring that the Catholic Church tells me the truth about Jesus Christ.


27 posted on 05/09/2007 3:08:49 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear

You need to read the decrees of the early councils. They are full of anathemas. But as for the Reformers, their writing are full of anathemas—for the Catholic Church and for their fellow Reformers. As for following “Christ rather than Rome,” that is a simple misstatement. Protestants were chosing to following the teachings of individuals of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli rather than those of Rome. You are, of course, free to reject Catholic dogma. But is it honest not to admit that you are following other dogmas? Neither sola Scriptura no justification by faith alone meet the simple test of being clearly stated in the Scriptures. Just compare Romans with the crisp logic of Calvin’s
work. In Calvin one sees a French canon lawyer at work. In Paul one sees a theologian of a very different sort, and his views have clearly be forced onto the procratian bed that Calvin has built. And despite all the books written on the subject, none one, certainly, not Calvin,, has managed to reconcile what James said with Calvin’s interpretation of Paul.


28 posted on 05/09/2007 3:23:42 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Campion
It's a technical term of art, so the original Greek meaning is not relevant. There was, at the time of Trent, a formal liturgy for making someone "anathema".

It is a greek word thats greek mean precedes the redefinition of your church to make it sound more tolerable to tender ears . But God is not mocked.

29 posted on 05/09/2007 3:36:01 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Campion
You need to read your Bible more carefully, then. I think it's amusing that, on the one hand, you've condemned Dr. Beckwith to hell ...

I can not condemn anyone to hell, that is the work of God .

I made the observation that he is unsaved, I did not make him unsaved .

while, on the other hand, you incorrectly accuse Trent of doing the same to the "reformers" and object to that and call it "hatred".

I did not "curse "him to hell or say I wanted him to go there. In fact I aid it was sad to realize he was unsaved

Right here, on the same thread, and you don't even see the breathtaking double standard that you're embracing. It's okay for you to damn Dr. Beckwith, but wrong for Trent to "damn" John Calvin?

Again I did not damn him to hell or send him to hell I simply made the judgment that the word of God commands we do, that is make judgments on the spiritual conditions of men I fellowship, do business with, marry or have as my teachers

If what Trent did is "hatred," then what you're doing is precisely the same. LOL.

No I am praying for God to open his ears and eyes to the truth, I grieve for the mans soul

30 posted on 05/09/2007 3:43:18 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: smpb

I do not believe the Catholic church can get one man into heaven let alone damn them to hell.

I do know the greek word and the Catholic church has to stand accountable for its words.


31 posted on 05/09/2007 3:45:17 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear; Campion
simply made the judgment that the word of God commands we do, that is make judgments on the spiritual conditions of men I fellowship, do business with, marry or have as my teachers
You do, as an individual, what the Council of Trent did as an Apostolic Authority. You have no such authority. They did.
32 posted on 05/09/2007 3:48:20 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It just reveals the truth of things. Most evangelicals would let Lucifer’s black army take all the Catholics away to the camps and not think twice about it.


33 posted on 05/09/2007 3:57:42 PM PDT by Maeve (Do you have supplies for an extended emergency? Be prepared! Pray!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: narses
You do, as an individual, what the Council of Trent did as an Apostolic Authority. You have no such authority. They did.

Have you ever read the bible?

Matthew 7:1-5

   1.  "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
 2.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
 3.  "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
 4.  How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
 5.  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

  (A warning to judge correctly in support of this scripture
John 7:24  24.  Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." )

* 1 Corinthians 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges ~all~ things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
* 1 Corinthians 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

1 Corinthians 5:11-13
 11.  But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
 12.  What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
 13.  God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Scripture tells us to judge and how to judge.  

34 posted on 05/09/2007 4:00:23 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear

How then is Trent not doing just that, AND with Apostolic Authority (again, an authority you lack)? More - while you may be called not to associate with the public and persistent sinner, where are you called on to publish your opinion?


35 posted on 05/09/2007 4:02:53 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: smpb

In the New Testament this word always implies execration. In some cases an individual denounces an anathema on himself unless certain conditions are fulfilled (Act 23:12,14,21). “To call Jesus accursed” [anathema] (1Cr 12:3) is to pronounce him execrated or accursed. If any one preached another gospel, the apostle says, “let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8,9); i.e., let his conduct in so doing be accounted accursed.

In Rom 9:3, the expression “accursed” (anathema) from Christ, i.e., excluded from fellowship or alliance with Christ, has occasioned much difficulty. The apostle here does not speak of his wish as a possible thing. It is simply a vehement expression of feeling, showing how strong was his desire for the salvation of his people.

The anathema in 1Cr 16:22 denotes simply that they who love not the Lord are rightly objects of loathing and execration to all holy beings; they are guilty of a crime that merits the severest condemnation; they are exposed to the just sentence of “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.”

Easton’s Bible Dictionary


36 posted on 05/09/2007 4:02:55 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: narses

Cursing someone to hell is not the same thing as making a judgment on the spiritual condition of a man at a certain period of time


37 posted on 05/09/2007 4:04:18 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NYer
" It is clear that in the minds of many the Catholic Church remains the hated Antichrist."

That's interesting; considerable prophecy says that the antichrist will be a Jew of the tribe of Dan. (i.e. a Merovingian)

38 posted on 05/09/2007 4:11:52 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"I must be in the wrong blogosphere. I never get any of this stuff. I guess I just don’t care that much who is church-jumping. It’s not like he’s going to win them the pennant now, is it?"

To some, its all about men, not Christ.

39 posted on 05/09/2007 4:14:41 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; Campion; Alex Murphy; ears_to_hear
We Proddies stopped listening at Trent when Rome denied salvation by Faith. That’s when Rome became anathema, according to the church fathers...

Ahem ... .you may want to revisit the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON SALVATION .

40 posted on 05/09/2007 4:31:24 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: narses; ears_to_hear; Campion
"You do, as an individual, what the Council of Trent did as an Apostolic Authority. You have no such authority. They did."

All who take up the great commission have that apostolic authority by virtue of having taken up that commission. In short, all of the body of Christ have it. If you don't have it, get it!

41 posted on 05/09/2007 4:32:00 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear

Where did Trent curse anyone to hell?


42 posted on 05/09/2007 4:34:12 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; Rosamond; sfm; G S Patton; Gumdrop; trustandhope; MarkBsnr; pblax8; oakcon; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

editor-surveyor says (regarding Apostolic Authority):
All who take up the great commission have that apostolic authority by virtue of having taken up that commission. In short, all of the body of Christ have it. If you don't have it, get it!
I ask, why then did the Apostles get selected as a body by Our Lord and why, when they were diminished by the treachery of Judas did they select ONE to fill that place? Why not simply assume (as you have) that ALL baptized in Christ have equal authority? What odd reading of Scripture puts you on the same plane as St. Peter?
43 posted on 05/09/2007 4:37:03 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear

He is unsaved because he does not agree with you?


44 posted on 05/09/2007 4:37:50 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I saw an interesting interview on “The Journey Home”, with a former Baptist. She said that after she read the writings of the early church fathers (those that had contact with the apostles), she realized that “she had been robbed”, and regretted that she had lost so much valuable time missing out on Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

She also said that her family and her best friend turned on her and that caused her great anguish; it was painful to watch.

It’s so sad that there is so much animosity between Christians, the only one who gains by this is the devil.


45 posted on 05/09/2007 4:39:54 PM PDT by diamond6 (Everyone who is for abortion has been born. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

I assume only what the Lord himself said, and the fruit of his apostles demonstrate daily.


46 posted on 05/09/2007 4:40:00 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I'm not sure what led Beckwith to return to the Catholic Church - or what led him to leave for that matter.

As for me, while I realize that every church has its issues, there are simply some lines that, when crossed, act as a bucket of cold water in the face and can't be ignored. The Vatican's reponse - or more appropriately, lack of response - to the German Catholics who were fundraising to build mosques for immigrants was such a moment for me.

Currently visiting a LCMS congregation and am satisfied with my decision.
47 posted on 05/09/2007 4:41:13 PM PDT by Old_Mil (Duncan Hunter in 2008! A Veteran, A Patriot, A Reagan Republican... http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: narses

That is the original meaning of anathema


48 posted on 05/09/2007 4:51:22 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

No because he is unsaved because he is looking to his law keeping and works and a church to be saved.

Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.


49 posted on 05/09/2007 4:56:16 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Gamecock; Campion; Alex Murphy
Ahem ... .you may want to revisit the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON SALVATION .

ahem you may want to visit the word of God

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

Jhn 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment::9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses

Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

50 posted on 05/09/2007 5:01:51 PM PDT by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson