How Not to Become a Catholic

Catholic Exchange ^ | February 16, 2012 | James Tonkowich

[NYer]

This is the first installment of how a former Protestant leader crossed the Tiber.

^[1]

James Tonkowich

A little over a year ago my status changed. Having been a Presbyterian minister for over twenty years, I became a Catholic layman. How that happened is a long story.

In a nutshell, though, reading a Catholic author here, meeting with a priest or two there, befriending groups of faithful Catholics, and attending lectures, meetings, and (occasionally) Mass all added up. At the same time, my questions about the viability of Protestantism in a post-modern environment became more pointed and my answers more frightening. The Protestant mainline, oldline, sideline is in theological, moral, and cultural freefall as it approaches becoming little more than a sideshow. And the evangelicals, I believe, are not all that far behind.

This, of course, didn’t occur to me overnight. My journey to the Catholic Church happened over the course of about twelve years—eight asking increasingly uncomfortable questions and four praying very hard and asking more uncomfortable questions.

Again, it’s a long story. On the other hand, how to keep the same thing from happening to you is a shorter story.

After all, for Protestants and for ministers in particular becoming a Catholic is a hassle. A now-Catholic friend told me that his evangelical missionary in-laws would have been happier had he and his wife become hyper-liberal Episcopalians than faithful, orthodox Catholics. Friends with worried faces either ask difficult questions or—even worse—ask and say nothing at all.

Had I left my Presbyterian denomination to join the Free Will Baptists or a dispensational Bible church or to an Anglo-Catholic parish (smells and bells, but not Roman smells and bells), things would have been simple. There would have been a sentence or two in the Presbytery minutes to the effect that I had “peaceably withdrawn” to thus and such church because my theological convictions were no longer in keeping with the Westminster Confession.

No one, however, is permitted to peaceably withdraw to the Catholic Church. Old anti-Catholic habits die hard and so rigmarole, kerfuffle, and consternation were the order of the day. On the other hand, I guess I did demote the denomination from “church” to “ecclesial community,” the ministers from “fathers and brothers” to “separated brethren,” and Protestantism in general from “many expressions of the Body of Christ” to “a bunch of sects in imperfect communion with the Body of Christ.”

Once all was said and done though, my friends are still my friends something for which I’m genuinely and profoundly grateful.

Not that I’m complaining, mind you. The Catholic Church is all it’s cracked up to be in those Scott Hahn books, Opus Dei discussion groups, and descriptions by friends who converted before I did. It is, as I told my wife one day, “the real deal” and I am amazed at God’s kindness to me that I get to be a Catholic.

On the other hand, if you’re a Protestant and especially if you’re a Protestant minister listing Romeward, there are rules you can follow that may help keep you from following in my soggy footsteps across the Tiber.

Let me make clear that they’re not hard and fast rules. Breaking them all with impunity will not guarantee a switch to Rome. I know many people such as the Protestant half of Evangelicals and Catholics Together who know more about the Church than I do and yet are firmly rooted in the faith of the Reformation.

After studying enough Catholicism to coauthor the book Is the Reformation Over?, historian Mark Noll in a recent issue of First Things calls himself “someone whose respect for Catholicism has grown steadily over the last four decades, and yet whose intention to live out his days as a Protestant also has grown stronger over those same decades.” Fair enough.

You could break all the rules and have the same experience Dr. Noll has had or you could break the rules to your own peril and could begin to view the Christian faith, your life, time, space, and the whole physical world in a new, but oddly familiar light. Perhaps I can seer you around all this.

For Catholics, let me strongly encourage you to break all the rules early and often. After all, why should the “converts” have all the fun? Rule #1: Assume that all Catholics are idiots.

When I say assume all Catholics are idiots, I mean you need to assume all Catholics are idiots. You can’t begin making exceptions because that’s where the trouble starts. It’s a slippery slope from “All Catholics except John Paul II and Benedict XVI are idiots,” to “All Catholics except JP2, B16, Richard John Neuhaus, Francis Cardinal George, and G.K. Chesterton are idiots,” to “There are many Catholics who are not idiots,” to “The majority of Catholics, who, I must admit, are not idiots,” to “Bless me, Father for I have sinned.” Nip this slippery slope in the bud. All means all.

All has to include all clergy, theologians, and intellectuals. In Blessed John Henry Newman’s mid-nineteenth century novel about conversion, Loss and Gain, the main character, Charles Reding, receives a final warning from Carlton, a friend at Oxford University, before he takes the plunge across the Tiber. About Roman Catholics, Carlton cautions, “You will find them under-educated men, I suspect.” When Charles presses his friend as to how he knows this, Carlton replies, “I suspect it. …I judge from their letters and speeches which one reads in the papers,” that is, in the English, Protestant, and, at the time, thoroughly anti-Catholic papers.

Carlton, a theology scholar, had managed to avoid all contact with actual Roman Catholic theologians and thinkers thereby providing himself with the safety of claiming that all Catholics are under-educated and not worth his attention except perhaps for ridicule.

Today that’s what the New York Times seems to think Catholics are prejudiced, “under-educated” (at least), cultural troglodytes and that should be good enough for you. (Actually the Times believes what most liberal elites believe, that, as Richard John Neuhaus put it, “The only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.” They heartily approve of Catholics who reject Church teachings particularly teachings to do with sexuality.)

Anyway, more than a century and a half after Newman wrote, Fr. James Schall, Professor of Government at Georgetown University noted at the website, The Catholic Thing ^[2]:

Few want to know what truth is found in Catholicism. The main reason Catholicism is hated in the modern world, and it is hated, is the suspicion that Catholicism might well be true. To mock or misrepresent Catholicism seems permissible if, as it is supposed, it is composed of dunderheads who cannot argue coherently about anything, not even what they believe and the grounds for it.

On a popular and practical level, this can be done by simply repeating the words, “How could anyone believe that?” with a pained facial expression whenever confronted with Purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, papal authority, transubstantiation, or any number of other Catholic distinctives.

Wondering even for a moment how bright, well-educated, and theologically astute people defend these doctrines will only lead you to investigate. And investigation would put you in dialogue with Catholic thinkers in person or through their writings. And dialogue if it is honest carries with it an openness to change. And an openness to change is the very thing you don’t want.

Better simply to assume we are all misguided dolts who desperately need either the New York Times or some Ryrie Study Bibles to set us straight.

 

Rule #2: Get all information on the Catholic faith second hand.

How the conversation got started is a mystery, but to topic was death and something I said caused my companion, an elderly gentleman, to remark, “Of course I’m Catholic and the Catholic Church teaches that when you die you become an angel.”

“Actually,” I responded helpfully, “the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that.”

“Oh, yes it does,” he insisted. “The Church teaches that when you die you become an angel.”

“No, really,” I replied, “Trust me on this. I know that the Church doesn’t teach that when you die you become an angel.”

“Look,” he said become mildly annoyed at the uninformed Protestant minister at his side, “I’ve been a Catholic all my life and I know the Church teaches that when you die you become an angel.”

Soooo… how ’bout them Red Sox?

Bugs Bunny cartoons and New Yorker cartoons teach that when you die you become an angel. Country songwriter Hoyt Axton teaches that you need to be good lest, when you die, you become an angel with, “a rusty old halo, skinny white cloud, second-hand wings full of patches.” And the 1967 movie “Casino Royal” with Peter Sellers and David Niven teaches that when you die you become an angel—unless you’re very, very bad.

But no matter how long you’ve been a Catholic, the Catholic Church has not, does not, and never will teach that when you die you become an angel.

I often wonder what other exotic doctrines were growing in this gentleman’s garden of misinformation. But I’m certain that finding someone like him is an ideal way of exploring the Catholic Church—or something vaguely like the Catholic Church—in complete safety. Since poorly catechized Catholics are a dime a dozen, you won’t have far to look. Some are still in the Church, some are as far from the Church as they can get, and some are next to you in the pew, having found in evangelicalism what they don’t realize has been in Catholicism since the beginning.

If you have a choice, go with the now-evangelical ex-Catholic particularly the variety who will tell you, “I used to be a Catholic, but now I’m a Christian.” Their misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine will probably be mixed with a severe distaste and the desire to prove the Church wrong and their current theological ideas correct.

Odd as it may seem, another good source for second-hand misinformation is older priests. Pick one who still appears to have hung on to his hippy tendencies and who you estimate went to seminary in the 1970s. If you prefer, you can substitute habit-free nuns of the same vintage. That’s the era Catholic scholar George Weigel refers to as the “post-Vatican II silly season.” Priests and nuns who imbibed the silly sauce never quite recovered.

Father Starchild or Sister Sunbeam will feel very comfortable making light of the Church’s authority to define any doctrine whatsoever. They happily disagree with many, that is, assuming they remember the correct doctrine at all. If you’re a conservative evangelical, these two will be your worst nightmare holding, as they do, to all the trendy ideas that liberal Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists love beginning with sexual “freedom” and do-it-yourself dogma.

When choosing a priest or nun, be careful not to get involved with a young “John Paul II” priest or a young nun in full habit. Too many of them are scary smart, extremely well educated, meticulously orthodox, and better preachers than you’ve heard in years. They’ll cause you trouble so stick with Father Starchild or Sister Sunbeam. Their ideas are outdated, their ilk is literally dying out, but they’re safe.

As Father Starchild or Sister Sunbeam will tell you, you’ll also want to avoid the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Commissioned by Pope John Paul II and written under the watchful eye of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI), the Catechism is the first-hand primary source of information on what Catholics believe. Avoid it.

First of all, it’s very long, detailed, and replete with Bible references and quotations from the Church Fathers (see Rule #3). Second, if evangelicals Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom in their book Is the Reformation Over are correct, you will find yourself agreeing with at least two-thirds right off the bat. Then whatever you don’t agree with, you will find yourself understanding and pondering. “Hmm,” you’ll say to yourself, “Perhaps I should study and think a bit more about the place of the Virgin Mary in the economy of salvation.” And what will come of that?

As Noll and Nystrom write:

Evangelicals or confessional Protestants who pick up the Catechism will find themselves in for a treat. Sentences, paragraphs, whole pages sound as if they could come from evangelical pulpits, including passages on topics such as the nature of Scripture or the meaning of grace and faith. These readers will also notice the depth of scholarship, worn quite lightly, with hundreds of references to Scripture but also citations from early theologians…. Readers familiar with standard statements of faith from the Reformation era… will quickly notice a different tone in this Catholic writing. While covering much of the same territory…, the Catholic Catechism is much more comprehensive. Moreover, it looks beyond the statement of doctrine to the care of souls. The Catholic Catechism is strikingly pastoral in tone. It is in part a book of worship—focusing again and again on the majesty of God, inviting readers to reflect on God’s character, to respond to his love, to live as he commands, and to devote themselves to his service. …Readers… may come to the Catechism looking for information. Finding information, they may also find themselves (as we did) stopping to pray. (page 116) Far better and safer to get your information second-hand.

 

[Iscool]

REV 2:26 - “To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations

REV 3:21 - “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne”.

You are reading these particular verses correctly...However;

1Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1Jn 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

We Christians are not looking to overcome, we have overcome already...Talk about cherry picking verses, you guys are masters at it...

1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

So look...We have overcome but someone who calls himself a Christian obviously has not...

2Ti 2:15 Study (the bible, not a catechism) to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

It's easy to see why you guys can't figure it out...You are forced to go thru the bible and pick out verses that agree with you religion's theology...As a result, you have to dump all those verses, and there's tons of 'em, that disagree with your religion's theology...

But then you come on here and post some of those scriptures and act like you really know what going on...

It only takes a few seconds to shut you down because you obviously don't know how to deal with and reconcile those verses that you avoid like the plague...

There's only one cure...Get into the bible and don't get out of it...

[johngrace]

My friend. There is no way we get ideas once saved always saved from the bible. If we buy into this saved always. It is from a book or minister or other influence that then gives us a verse. We make it into what it does not declare.

We did not just by reading the new testament only come up with these ideas. First we read it somewhere else then go back to look for it in scripture. Then we prop it up by isolating that verse that we try to prove by bad semantics.

Which also proves some of us do not get it from the bible. Al la solo scriputural. It is a farce from the enemy.

Now we can ask for the guidence until we die. I now I have. I know by the Holy Spirit' s confirmation to myself. I pray a lot . When you pray you know Christ.

We have to cooperate. John the Apostle states IF WE Sin we have to confess our Sin. We respond. Otherwise why does John put IF . If he believed this nonsense. He would not put that we have to confess.

Jesus is love and justice. There is no love or justice if he makes you do it. We are not Robots.

He is not a dictator.

[johngrace]

Let’s be honest. I will ask you a question. Now think when was the first time you figured this out ? A. You read it from the new testament first? Or B.you read it from other books or heard a minister tell you about it then looked up that verse?

[Iscool]

My friend. There is no way we get ideas once saved always saved from the bible. If we buy into this saved always. It is from a book or minister or other influence that then gives us a verse. We make it into what it does not declare.

There's a few hundred million bible believers/readers who will disagree with your, myself included...

I and many others on FR have posted numerous verses of scripture that point out that once saved, always saved...Verses that are in plain, clear writing...

And these are verses that you guys refuse to respond to...And of course you can't...And your religion avoids those scriptures like they are the plague...

[smvoice]

The difference is whether a person believes he is part of a kingdom of believers or a body of believers.. A kingdom of believers will find their doctrines from the OT, including Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and Hebrews through Revelation. A body of believers will find their doctrine in Romans through Philemon. A kingdom of believers works on keeping the law. A body of believers rests on the finished work of Christ. Grace. A kingdom of believers believes Christ's earthly ministry was to show them the way to heaven. A body of believers believes Christ came to die FOR THEIR SINS. A kingdom of believers preach Christ's life for a pattern. A body of believers preach Christ's death and resurrection for our reconciliation to God. A kingdom of believers teach that they must endure to the end to be saved. A body of believers teach they are already saved, sealed by the Holy Spirit and spiritually seated in heavenly places in Christ.

A kingdom of believers MUST believe they have replaced Israel during this time of Israel's blindness, in order to claim the covenants and promises made to that Nation. A body of believers KNOW that before the Cross, they were "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and STRANGERS from the COVENANTS OF PROMISE, HAVING NO HOPE, and WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD;" Eph. 2:12.

They also KNOW that the blood of Christ have made them nigh to God. That God has reconciled both Jew and Gentile unto Himself BY THE CROSS. Eph. 2:16.

A kingdom of believers toil to bring Christ's kingdom to fruition on this earth, so that He may return. A body of believers KNOW that peace will NOT be until He returns and sets up His kingdom. A kingdom looks on this world and works to make it fit for Christ. A body of believers looks to heaven and waits for Christ to take us from this present evil world. Knowing that all man's efforts are in vain who try to do bring about something that ONLY CHRIST CAN AND WILL ACCOMPLISH.

A kingdom of believers cannot be saved. They are taking for themselves something that is not theirs to take. They are rejecting God's reconciliation and free gift for a lie. They are not Israel. And while pretending to be, they are still without Christ, being aliens from the commmonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. They are as blind as the nation of Israel is right now. Rejecting the Body of Christ for a kingdom that is not theirs to claim.

[boatbums]

this sort of thinking about assured salvation then causes you to use the protestant tactic of reinterpreting plain meaning of scripture, for example, when paul says to ‘work out ones salvation with and trembling, etc....

A Protestant tactic??? On the contrary, it IS a plain reading of Scripture that repeatedly tells a Christian that he can KNOW he has eternal life. What I find happens with people such as yourself, is you take a snippet of Scripture as you did with Paul's "work out ones salvation with and trembling, etc...." and totally miss the who, what, when, where of his meaning. Let's look at that verse and I'll show you what I mean:

Philippians 2:11-16
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.” Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky as you hold firmly to the word of life. And then I will be able to boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain.

This was Paul's letter to the believers at Philippi and he was encouraging them to endure whatever hardships that came upon them because of the grace of God that had saved them. If you look at your snippet, "work out ones salvation with and trembling, etc.", and your presumed meaning that in order to be saved you have to work it out yourself, i.e., work for it, then look at the actual verse in its context you can see that that is NOT what Paul is saying at all! He didn't say "work FOR your salvation" but to work out your salvation. How can you work out or exercise something unless you have it? You have been told this piece of a verse shows you must work for your salvation, but now that you have read it do you STILL think that is what Paul was saying? What do you think he meant by saying, "for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose"? See, that's what I'm talking about. People are taught a certain dogma and shown what they are told is a "proof text" but when they look at it in context and objectively, as well as other Scriptures that deal with the same subject, they come away with a different understanding than what they were told.

You said that the piece of the verse meant that salvation wasn't "assured" and you said it was "plain text". It doesn't need a reinterpretation nor an "appeal to context", although the context IS important as I just showed you. The only ones doing any shoehorning to fit a preconceived dogma is YOU GUYS.

But, you know what? I can speak about the truth of the Gospel, quote Bible verse after verse but it will not sink in until one thing happens. That one thing is a heart that is seeking for the truth from God. Your religion tells you that salvation is by grace. They even go so far as to say it is by faith and belief in Christ as Savior BUT they have to add works to it. When you do that, add works or efforts, deeds, to faith in order to be saved, you cancel out grace. Grace means undeserved, unmerited favor. It means that it is a GIFT. You say, "Okay I'll accept it's a gift...but you can give a gift back, HAH!". Did you see what you just said? You acknowledged salvation is a gift. WHY would anyone in their right mind give back the gift of eternal life??? That is what is called a "non sequitor" which is a statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

So make up your mind. Are we saved by grace or not? Is it a gift of God or do we have to work for it? Is it grace or works that saves us? It can't be both. Paul said in Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. Got that? Works cancels out grace. If it is by works then it can't be by grace and if it is by grace then it can't be by works. It's one or the other. That, dear raygunfan, is the ONLY reason at all why anyone can have assurance of their salvation. Because it is by God's grace, which he gifts to us, we receive it by faith and we HAVE eternal life.

One final point. You say you choose to follow the Roman Catholic Church and whatever they tell you to believe you are going to obey them, right? Are you aware that many of the early church "fathers" believed and taught a Gospel that matches that of the Reformation leaders much more than that held by the Church of Rome today? It's true. Here is a link that can show you what those first Christians believed and taught and you will see that the Reformation was an attempt to bring the Catholic Church BACK to those teachings that were catholic. The link is http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/faith_alone_in_early_church_writings.htm#II. I hope you have a blessed night.

[annie laurie]

The difference is whether a person believes he is part of a kingdom of believers or a body of believers.. A kingdom of believers will find their doctrines from the OT, including Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and Hebrews through Revelation. A body of believers will find their doctrine in Romans through Philemon.

smvoice, I have a sincere question: I have never heard of dividing up the Bible in the way you have stated above (OT + some sections of NT, versus other sections of NT). Can you please refer me to where this teaching originates? Is there a pastor, or movement, or denomination, which promotes this teaching? It's completely new to me.

Thanks in advance.

[boatbums]

Amen!

Glad to hear that! So, does this mean you agree that Jesus "entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many."? Because I got the impression from your comments to Smvoice that you didn't believe Christ's sacrifice was in the past, that he died ONCE for all and that that sacrifice was retroactive, meaning it is not repeated over and over again as the Old Testament priests had to do but is effective for all sins, past, present and future. Is this your take on those verses? Thanks.

[smvoice]

The best way to explain it is from Eph. Chapter 2.

"Wherefore remember that ye being in TIME PAST Gentiles in the flesh...That at THAT TIME ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having NO HOPE and WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD;" Eph. 2:11-13.

"BUT NOW in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are MADE NIGH BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." Eph. 2:13.

So far, we know that there is a "Time Past" and a "But Now" that Paul is speaking of.

"That in the AGES TO COME he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." Eph. 2:7.

So now we know there are at LEAST THREE divisions of time here. "Time Past", "But Now", and "The Ages to Come".

The point is to figure out when "But Now" began. When were Gentiles without Christ and strangers from the covenants of promise? That would be "Time Past". The answer is found in Matt. 10:5: "Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles." And again Christ emphasizes that He was sent to Israel in Matt. 15:24: "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Christ's earthly ministry was fulfillment of prophecy to a nation (Israel), as their Messiah. It was prophecy concerning a kingdom of believers. But there was another reason for His coming. A mystery hid in God since the foundation of the world (Rom. 16:25,26). It was a mystery UNTIL revealed to the Apostle Paul and concerned the formation of a body of believers. The formation of that Body of Believers is found in Romans through Philemon.

As far as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John being part of OT prophecy, Hebrews 9:16,17 answer that. "For where a testament is there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force AFTER men are dead; other wise it is of no strength at all WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVETH".

Which means that Christ's earthly ministry, up until His death on the cross, was part of the Old Testament prophecy concerning Him.

Christ came the first time to fulfill prophecy and had Israel accepted Him as their Messiah, He would have set up His kingdom and Israel would have been a nation of priests and a blessings to all nations. Fulfilling the covenant God made with Abraham. But they, as a nation, rejected Him. Gentiles would have been blessed through the RISE of Israel. When they rejected Him, they were blinded and set aside temporarily. Which left Gentiles WHERE? With no hope.

Until Christ reached down, and saved Saul of Tarsus and gave to him the revelations of the church the body of Christ, where there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. He is forming a BODY of BELIEVERS right now, NOT a Kingdom of believers. We are the "But Now" of Ephesians. The ONE NEW MAN. Saved purely by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ.

This is just the shortest overview I could show you. If you have more questions, I would be pleased to answer them. God Bless!

[Religion Moderator]

you obviously don't know how to deal with and reconcile those verses that you avoid like the plague

Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[bvmtotustuus]

I think something needs to be clarified here. When Catholics say we do not believe in, once saved always saved, it is not because we do not have knowledge or assurance of our salvation, it is because we believe in free will and not in double predestination. We know we are still sinners and can still be deceived by sin, Satan and the world.

Catholics do not look at salvation as only a one-time event, but also a life long process. We have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved. Salvation takes on many forms in the scriptures, healing, deliverance, forgiveness from sin, all of these in both physical and spiritual realms.

When you post all of those scriptures we are saying Amen.

The issue, once saved always saved, has its roots in Faith Alone, which is not scriptural and is a man made tradition.

I think that you also believe in works. Asking Jesus to come into your heart is a work of faith, is it not?

Going forward to an altar call is a work of faith.

The issue of the Fathers of the church, if what you are saying is true, then Luther would not have invented Scripture Alone. It is because the Fathers looked so Catholic that he rejected them as an authority.

[D-fendr]

>>> Can you please refer me to where this teaching originates?

Begins with John Nelson Darby in the mid 19th Century, and for some teachings, new variations up to the mid-20th Century. Look up Dispensationalism, Darby, Brethren Movement, hyperdispensationalists, Grace Movement. One overview, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism

They teach that Paul taught a different gospel and soteriology than Christ taught in the NT...

[boatbums]

I think something needs to be clarified here. When Catholics say we do not believe in, once saved always saved, it is not because we do not have knowledge or assurance of our salvation, it is because we believe in free will and not in double predestination. We know we are still sinners and can still be deceived by sin, Satan and the world. Catholics do not look at salvation as only a one-time event, but also a life long process. We have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved. Salvation takes on many forms in the scriptures, healing, deliverance, forgiveness from sin, all of these in both physical and spiritual realms.

That contradicts what Catholics on the Religion Forum have said, what the Catechism says and what I experienced as a Catholic. It has always been presented as faith PLUS works for salvation. If it were really about a proper understanding of grace then there would be no question about OSAS. What you state about "free will" as counter to "predestination" double or otherwise shows that the truth of the Gospel of grace HAS been missed. How Scripture speaks of salvation certainly entails both justification and sanctification. We have been justified by faith in Christ, his blood has cleansed us from ALL sin. Our Cristian walk AFTER being justified is a life long process of God conforming us into the image of Christ. As far as sanctification - where it means sanctified or set apart - we have been and are as children of God indwelled with the Holy Spirit of promise. That Spirit is given as the "earnest of our inheritance" and we have been sealed unto the day of our redemption. The Holy Spirit does not leave us, therefore we can know we are saved and will be glorified.

Predestination, where someone is chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved while others are predetermined to be damned would indeed make us robots without free will, but that is not the predestination Scripture teaches. Because God is all-knowing, among his other attributes, he knew before the world existed who would come to him in faith and be saved. Those that he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. This is not the same thing as saying God predestined who would be saved and who would be damned. I know some people believe it like that, but I do not.

So, do Christians sin after they are born again? Yes, and God says if we confess our sins he forgives and cleanses us from all unrighteousness, but whenever a child of God sins, they do not cease to be his child nor does the Holy Spirit depart. This is because we are not saved based upon our own merit or works but by his grace. When we receive Christ, believe in him, we are exercising faith. We accept the gift of eternal life. That faith is NOT a work in the sense of merit. It is an act of free will that believes. I won't fall for the line that faith is a work, because Scripture says it is not. Ephesians 2:8,9 says "By grace are ye saved through faith and that NOT of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast."

The idea that the doctrine of OSAS is based on a "movement" of faith alone, as if it is not found anywhere in Scripture, is flat out false. It most certainly IS Scriptural and did not come from a manmade tradition. In fact, if it WERE manmade, it's more than likely men would have made it by works in order that they CAN boast. That is our nature after all.

The issue of the Fathers of the church, if what you are saying is true, then Luther would not have invented Scripture Alone. It is because the Fathers looked so Catholic that he rejected them as an authority.

Luther did not invent sola Scriptura but it is both Scriptural as well as being held by nearly ALL of the early church fathers. The Reformation, if you have studied it objectively, was an attempt to change the Catholic Church BACK to its catholicity. From the site http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/04/historical-roots-of-reformation-and.html we learn:

"In fact, recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and to say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity. That generalization applies particularly to Luther and to some of the Anglican reformers, somewhat less to Calvin, still less to Zwingli, least of all to the Anabaptists. But even Zwingli, who occupies the left wing among the classical reformers, retained a surprising amount of catholic substance in his thought, while the breadth and depth of Calvin’s debt to the heritage of the catholic centuries is only now beginning to emerge….There was more to quote [from the church fathers] than their [the reformers'] Roman opponents found comfortable. Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone….That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers….Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden.

In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition….Interpreters of the New Testament have suggested a host of meanings for the passage [Matthew 16]. As Roman Catholic scholars now concede, the ancient Christian father Cyprian used it to prove the authority of the bishop – not merely of the Roman bishop, but of every bishop….So traumatic was the effect of the dogma of papal infallibility that the pope did not avail himself of this privilege for eighty years. But when he finally did, by proclaiming the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary on November 1, 1950, he confirmed the suspicions and misgivings of the dogma’s critics. Not only is Scriptural proof obviously lacking for this notion, but the tradition of the early Christian centuries is also silent about it….In asserting their catholicity, the reformers drew upon the church fathers as proof that it was possible to be catholic without being Roman. Study of the fathers thus became an important part of the Protestant panoply as well. In fact, the very word 'patrology' as a title for a manual on the church fathers and their works is a Protestant invention, first used by Johann Gerhard (d. 1637).

When Protestant liberalism developed during the nineteenth century, one of its principal contributions to theological literature was its work on the fathers. The Patrology of the Roman Catholic scholar Johannes Quasten and an essay by the Jesuit scholar J. de Ghellinck both reveal the dependence even of Roman theologians upon the scholarly achievements of Protestant historians, the outstanding of whom was Adolf Harnack (d. 1930). Although the generation of theologians after Harnack has not been as interested in the field of patristic study, Protestants have not completely forgotten the heritage of the fathers. Meanwhile, Roman Catholics have begun to put an assessment upon the fathers that differs significantly from the traditional one. Instead of measuring the fathers against the standards of a later orthodoxy, Roman Catholic historians now interpret them in the context of their own time. This means, for example, that a church father like Origen is no longer interpreted on the basis of his later (and politically motivated) condemnation for heresy, but on the basis of his own writings and career….The study of the church fathers is now a predominantly Roman Catholic building, even though many of the foundations for it were laid by Protestant hands….the heritage of the fathers does not belong exclusively to either side. Roman Catholics must acknowledge the presence of evangelical or 'Protestant' ideas in Irenaeus, and Protestants must come to terms with the catholic elements in the same father." (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle Of Roman Catholicism [Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1959], pp. 46-49, 51-52, 78, 83, 195-196)

[johngrace]

At least it appears you are being honest. Which I do appreciate.

Sorry SM that is seems so convoluted. We still have to confess our sins as put by John the apostle.

Are you declaring you do not ask for forgiveness in certain sins. Or they are already forgiven? Which does not make sense when we are told by John to confess our sins. Which is directed to Christians as to live by here on earth.

I believe your mistake is to believe you went past the pearly gates already. We are still here on earth to be tempted until we enter the gates where we will not be tempted again but not until then. God will guide us if we stay close in obedience of belief. Every quote you put down is still in that requirement. IMHO.

[Iscool]

Completely agree...

[bvmtotustuus]

Glad to hear that! So, does this mean you agree that Jesus “entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many.”? Because I got the impression from your comments to Smvoice that you didn't believe Christ's sacrifice was in the past, that he died ONCE for all and that that sacrifice was retroactive, meaning it is not repeated over and over again as the Old Testament priests had to do but is effective for all sins, past, present and future. Is this your take on those verses? Thanks.

Certainly Catholics believe Jesus died once 2000 years ago for all of our sins. This sacrifice was offered once for all. Jesus is human and Divine. 2000 years ago he entered our history and was incarnated, lived, suffered and died and rose again. But that offering had non-bloody component, which started in at the last supper. This non-bloody offering is eternal because Jesus is God and outside of time/space, and it does not repeat because it does not end.

The reference to the offering over and over is that Jesus offering is not like the old testament offering of bulls and goats, which had no power to fully remove sin and had to be repeated.

[bvmtotustuus]

Glad to hear that! So, does this mean you agree that Jesus “entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many.”? Because I got the impression from your comments to Smvoice that you didn't believe Christ's sacrifice was in the past, that he died ONCE for all and that that sacrifice was retroactive, meaning it is not repeated over and over again as the Old Testament priests had to do but is effective for all sins, past, present and future. Is this your take on those verses? Thanks.

Certainly Catholics believe Jesus died once 2000 years ago for all of our sins. This sacrifice was offered once for all. Jesus is human and Divine. 2000 years ago he entered our history and was incarnated, lived, suffered and died and rose again. But that offering had non-bloody component, which started in at the last supper. This non-bloody offering is eternal because Jesus is God and outside of time/space, and it does not repeat because it does not end.

The reference to the offering over and over is that Jesus offering is not like the old testament offering of bulls and goats, which had no power to fully remove sin and had to be repeated.

[bvmtotustuus]

>>That contradicts what Catholics on the Religion Forum have said, what the Catechism says and what I experienced as a Catholic. It has always been presented as faith PLUS works for salvation. If it were really about a proper understanding of grace then there would be no question about OSAS. What you state about “free will” as counter to “predestination” double or otherwise shows that the truth of the Gospel of grace HAS been missed. How Scripture speaks of salvation certainly entails both justification and sanctification. We have been justified by faith in Christ, his blood has cleansed us from ALL sin. Our Cristian walk AFTER being justified is a life long process of God conforming us into the image of Christ. As far as sanctification - where it means sanctified or set apart - we have been and are as children of God indwelled with the Holy Spirit of promise. That Spirit is given as the “earnest of our inheritance” and we have been sealed unto the day of our redemption. The Holy Spirit does not leave us, therefore we can know we are saved and will be glorified.

The issue is free will. We are saved by faith. But God will not force us to love Him. No one can steal us away from the Father. But we can choose to reject Him, as unthinkable at that might be.

>>So, do Christians sin after they are born again? Yes, and God says if we confess our sins he forgives and cleanses us from all unrighteousness, but whenever a child of God sins, they do not cease to be his child nor does the Holy Spirit depart. This is because we are not saved based upon our own merit or works but by his grace. When we receive Christ, believe in him, we are exercising faith. We accept the gift of eternal life. That faith is NOT a work in the sense of merit. It is an act of free will that believes. I won't fall for the line that faith is a work, because Scripture says it is not. Ephesians 2:8,9 says “By grace are ye saved through faith and that NOT of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.”

Absolutely initial Faith is a totally free gift, no works. But after wards we are accountable to that gift of faith. The scripture also says that we are save by faith working through love. Love is a verb and is action based.

>> The idea that the doctrine of OSAS is based on a “movement” of faith alone, as if it is not found anywhere in Scripture, is flat out false. It most certainly IS Scriptural and did not come from a man made tradition. In fact, if it WERE man made, it's more than likely men would have made it by works in order that they CAN boast. That is our nature after all.

Where in scripture?

>>The issue of the Fathers of the church, if what you are saying is true, then Luther would not have invented Scripture Alone. It is because the Fathers looked so Catholic that he rejected them as an authority.

Luther did not invent sola Scriptura but it is both Scriptural as well as being held by nearly ALL of the early church fathers. The Reformation, if you have studied it objectively, was an attempt to change the Catholic Church BACK to its catholicity. From the site http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/04/historical-roots-of-reformation-and.html we learn:

What are these references. I went to the link you provided, it offers a lot of opinion from unknown sources, I went to the old testament links, they talk a talk about the Septuagint but they are missing one critical component. The Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament was used by Jesus and the Apostles.

[smvoice]

Oh, thank you D-fendr for helping me see the "truth" of where "this teaching" originates..

I had NO IDEA that John Nelson Darby was formerly named Paul who was formerly named Saul. And that Darby was saved on the road to Damascus and given his commission by revelations of the risen Christ. I had NO IDEA that Darby was given the mystery to reveal..."Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to MY GOSPEL, AND THE preaching of Jesus Christ, ACCORDING TO THE REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY, which was KEPT SECRET SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN, But NOW is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the COMMANDMENT of the everlasting God, MADE KNOWN TO ALL NATIONS for the obedience of faith." ROMANS 16:25,26.

I had NO IDEA that Darby wrote, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Romans through Philemon, where he shows us the formation of the Church the Body of Christ. I did not even know that Darby was the Apostle to the Gentiles. ROMANS 11:13.

But thank you, D-fendr for your insight into God's Word and the understanding it must have taken on your part to insert John Nelson Darby into Paul's calling, commission, and writings to the Church the Body of Christ. Which is where we are today. "But Now". Of course you realize that "But Now" began at the cross. Not in the mid 19th Century.

I just had no idea that Darby was using the pseudonym Paul in 33 AD. I may have to completely rethink my beliefs in light of this epiphany...

[Iscool]

Sorry SM that is seems so convoluted. We still have to confess our sins as put by John the apostle.

Odd coming from a Catholic when the requirement for confession is only once per year, isn't it???

Are you declaring you do not ask for forgiveness in certain sins. Or they are already forgiven?

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

And yes, we do ask for forgiveness for our sins...On a daily basis...And sometimes by the minute... Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Which does not make sense when we are told by John to confess our sins. Which is directed to Christians as to live by here on earth.

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

You guys can't seem to separate your spirit from your flesh...It is not our flesh that is saved...Our corrupt flesh will be redeemed at the Resurrection...

When we sin, we sin in the flesh...There is no sin imputed to our spirit/soul...

1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

1Jn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 1Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I assume that these verses and many, many like them are never spoken of in any of your homilies...

That's why we know we have a place in heaven...Jesus paid for our sin...Past, present and future...

So can I beat up some old lady, steal her purse and still go to heaven??? Absolutely...But am I going to do that??? It's not in my immediate plans...God has put it into my heart to please Him...And that would not please Him so much...

We have liberty...We are free...All things are lawful...Just as Paul says...

1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

So what happens when I abuse this freedom??? Here's one fella that abused this freedom...

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Did the guy go to hell??? Nope...But he probably didn't live long...

And incidentally, this fits as another application to that verse, Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling...

Heb 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
Heb 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

If you are a child of God, you'd better work out your own salvation because God knows how to wield that willow switch far more effectively than anything you can remember from your childhood...Believe me, I know...

There is so much truth in the scriptures...There are so many answers in the scriptures...

Jesus is the Word of God...Jesus is God speaking...The Word of God gave us, in writing, the words of God...

Why anyone would put the traditions of their religion about the words of God is a mystery I'll never understand...