I Need Help!

[ICTHUS]

This is the way this forum will work. I will put each of our posts in a separate post on Phatmass, since this is probably the easiest way to do this...

This is my opponent's thesis:

[color=red]"Roman Catholics - Salvation is of works and grace and can be lost.
There are many mediators between God and man." [/color]

[ICTHUS]

[color=blue][quote]Protestants (for the most part) - Salvation is of grace alone and can never be lost. There is one mediator between God and man.

Roman Catholics - Salvation is of works and grace and can be lost.
There are many mediators between God and man.

Pentecostal/Charismatics - Salvation is of works and grace and can be lost.[/quote]

You have [i]grossly misrepresented[/i] Catholic doctrine.

I quote from Pontificator, a Traditional Anglican, on his blog. ([url="http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=5"]http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=5[/url])

[quote][b]Sola Gratia, Sola Fide[/b]

[i]Which denomination or tradition does the following statement best represent? Lutheran? Baptist? Reformed? Anglican? Catholic? Orthodox? Methodist?[/i]

Salvation is a grace, a gift of God, not the work of man. Therefore, man can be saved by faith in the Savior and by this means alone…. The essential, for salvation, is to recognize that God is its author, that it depends, not on one’s own strength, but on God’s. In this realization, where a radical distrust of self is but the obverse of absolute confidence in God, consists faith; nothing else can possibly replace it.

Faith alone saves us means, if it means anything, that we, on our part, have nothing to add to it, nothing outside or independent of it. Any such addition would result, of necessity, in a denial of the essential. For if, believing in principle in the saving action of God, we were obliged to add something of our own initiative, what would be the result? We would fall back at once into the impossible situation from which grace had rescued us; we would have to accomplish our salvation in part, in the hope that God would do the rest. But our actual state of wretchedness comes from our incapacity for any effective initiative, even incomplete, toward salvation; in short, we have not only to be assisted to save ourselves; we need to be saved.

In other words, either we are not saved by divine grace, acknowledged and accepted by faith, or this grace, which is in God, is the sole cause of our salvation, and faith, which is in us, the sole means of access to it. For if there is something needed for salvation that has a source other than grace received by faith, we are confronted again with the impossible task of the salvation of man by man. The gospel, however, is the good news that someone else-God in Christ–has done for us what we could not do.

The passage cited is from the renowned Catholic scholar Louis Bouyer’s book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism (1956). It represents his interpretation of the essential views of Martin Luther.

Bouyer goes on to say that the purpose of Luther’s sola gratia and sola fide is to reject the idea that we have to add something external to these two things–grace, which gives, and faith, which receives. Such an addition would amount to saying that we are saved neither by grace nor by faith. God provides part of what is needed for our salvation, but we are still left with providing the rest. “On the other hand,” Bouyer writes, “the insight of Luther, preserved in the type of Protestantism most faithful to its origins and most truly Christian, is that all is grace, and that, consequently, all in our salvation comes to us by faith.” Bouyer offers this evaluation: “At once we can see that Luther’s view of salvation, so understood, is in perfect harmony with Catholic tradition, [b]the great conciliar definitions on grace and salvation, and even with Thomism.” [/b]

Yet I find that many Catholics, including clergy, understand the Catholic Church as teaching faith plus works. I am not throwing stones. As one of my friends likes to say, “We Episcopalians get salvation the old fashioned way: We earn it!”

The following comments by Peter Kreeft seem particularly appropriate:

But many Catholics to this day have not learned the Catholic and biblical doctrine. They think we are saved by good intentions or being nice or sincere or trying a little harder or doing a sufficient number of good deeds. Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question: If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer? The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus!

Until we Catholics know the foundation, Protestants are not going to listen to us when we try to teach them about the upper stories of the building. Perhaps God allows the Protestant/Catholic division to persist not only because Protestants have abandoned many precious truths taught by the Church but also because many Catholics have never been taught the most precious truth of all, that salvation is a free gift of grace, accepted by faith. I remember vividly the thrill of discovery when, as a young Protestant at Calvin College, I read Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent on justification. I did not find what I had been told I would find, “another gospel” of do-it-yourself salvation by works, but a clear and forceful statement that we can do nothing without God’s grace, and that this grace, accepted by faith, is what saves us.

Theologians can debate how one crosses the “t’s” and dots the “i’s,” but it’s also clear, at least to me, that Catholicism [b]formally[/b] (but not materially) affirms the sola gratia, sola fide. I just wonder how many Catholics have actually heard this gospel preached within their parish churches and catechism classes.[/quote]

There are other resources that I could point you to which, I think, would sufficently convince you that your 'faith + works' theory is inadequate. However, I am short on time and must move to your next serious error.
[quote]
"There are many mediators between God and men" [/quote]

This is simply patently false

Where do you get this from? Likely from a warped understanding of the Church's understanding of Mary's role in her Son's redemption, or of the priesthood, but I shall let you eludicate your objection in full.

God bless,
Ryan[/color]

[ICTHUS]

[color=red]Sadly, the vast majority of Roman Catholicism does not line up with this belief.

As I understand it, Catholicism still teaches that salvation can be lost. This, in my mind, necessitates that it be partially of works. A salvation that can be lost, is in my mind, another Gospel.

The existence of purgatory in Catholic doctrine is another example of why I believe it to be a different Gospel. Purgatory assumes that one can die partially unclean. This, from my understanding, is a concept complete foreign to the Bible and constitutes another Gospel.

I have debate with myself for a long time whether the Catholic Church teaching is another Gospel or the same one with only differences in theology. I have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church teaches another Gospel. Any teaching of salvation that can be lost or is not total once-and-for-all purification from all uncleanness is another Gospel from my understand of Scripture.[/color]

[ICTHUS]

[color=blue][quote name='bobthecockroach']Sadly, the vast majority of Roman Catholicism does not line up with this belief.[/quote] How so? I'm not talking about the individual opinions of Catholics, I'm talking about the official documents of the Magisterium, taken as a whole and not selectively quoted (I have read Travis' dissertation that the Catholic Church is not a Christian church, and quite frankly, he selectively quotes Trent where it suits his agenda and leaves it silent in other places that would damage his case)

[quote]As I understand it, Catholicism still teaches that salvation can be lost. [/quote] This is the case, yes. [quote]This, in my mind, necessitates that it be partially of works. A salvation that can be lost, is in my mind, another Gospel.[/quote] This does not follow at all. A person who has deliberately chosen to place themselves out of God's grace and communion with His Church by mortal sin is just as spiritually dead as a person whom God has not given the grace of conversion and Baptism to. God would be quite justified in leaving such a person in their sins and condemned to Hell, it is [i]only by an act of His Grace[/i] that He bestows upon them the gift of repentance and the desire to go to Confession and be received back into the state of sanctifying grace and communion with the Church. For it is written "I will have mercy upon whom I will" (Romans 9:15)

[quote]The existence of purgatory in Catholic doctrine is another example of why I believe it to be a different Gospel. Purgatory assumes that one can die partially unclean. This, from my understanding, is a concept complete foreign to the Bible and constitutes another Gospel.[/quote] Purgatory assumes that one can die in a state of having to make retribution to God's justice for the [i]temporal effects of sin[/i]. Let me give you an example.

I am five years old. I break my father's window whilst playing baseball, and my father becomes angry. However, my father is merciful, and because He is my father and I, his son, he does not refuse me from his house (his 'covenant' - indeed, the Hebrews viewed the family as an extension of the Old Covenant, hence God's being constantly described as a Father in the New Testament). However, he denies me my allowance for several months in order to pay for the expense of the window. My allowance came from him and he does not have to give it to me in the first place - it comes from his grace, but this grace, in the case of purgatory, is directed to making retribution for the damage I have done both to myself and to others because of my sins.

If I understand the Protestant idea of glorification correctly (and, my only real exposure to it is from the OC Supertones song "What it Comes To" (Sorry, poor source, I know!))

[quote]Trial by fire purification
The day I die is the day that it’s done[/quote]

Purgatory is, according to the Church's definition, the final purification of the dross of sin in our lives, the 'grace shower' of all the mud and grime we've accumulated from our travels on the long road to Heaven (as one priest I discussed the matter with so aptly explained it). Since we have no concept of the idea of time in the afterlife (although it's a good bet it doesn't exist there as we know it), we simply do not know how long it will take. It [i]could[/i] be instantaneous. In this case, it could coincide with the Protestant idea of glorification - we are prepared for the Beatific Vision of God through the 'grace shower' God gives us beforehand.

[quote]I have debate ([i]sic[/i]) with myself for a long time whether the Catholic Church teaching is another Gospel or the same one with only differences in theology. I have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church teaches another Gospel. Any teaching of salvation that can be lost or is not total once-and-for-all purification from all uncleanness is another Gospel from my understand of Scripture.[/quote] Ah. I see. From [i]your understanding[/i] of Scripture, eh? Well, I could just as easily respond that the Church [i]wrote[/i] Scripture, so any other exegesis that doesn't correspond with hers is incorrect.

Peace of Christ,
Ryan[/color]

[ICTHUS]

[color=red][quote name='ICTHUS']This does not follow at all.[/quote]

Actually it follows perfectly. Holding on to salvation is a work. If one's salvation must be held on to than one could easily boast that he was wise enough to hold on to it. Boasting is completely excluded in Scripture. This negates any possibility of working on our part, which includes holding on to our salvation.

[quote]A person who has deliberately chosen to place themselves out of God's grace and communion with His Church by mortal sin is just as spiritually dead as a person whom God has not given the grace of conversion and Baptism to. God would be quite justified in leaving such a person in their sins and condemned to Hell, it is [i]only by an act of His Grace[/i] that He bestows upon them the gift of repentance and the desire to go to Confession and be received back into the state of sanctifying grace and communion with the Church. For it is written "I will have mercy upon whom I will" (Romans 9:15)[/quote]

The problem with this is that it assumes that our sins our counted against where salvation is concerned. This is simply not the case.

Romans 4:6-8 (KJV)
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Notice two things:

1. God imputes righteousness
2. God does not impute sin.

If our sin is not counted against us how can a mortal sin place us outside of salvation?

Isaiah 53:4-6 (KJV)
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Our sins are counted against Christ, not us.

[quote]In this case, it could coincide with the Protestant idea of glorification - we are prepared for the Beatific Vision of God through the 'grace shower' God gives us beforehand.[/quote]

The Protestant view does not consider this trial by a fire a payment for sins but rather a testing of what we did on earth. That which was not for God will be burnt away and only that which was righteous and for God will remain.

[quote]Ah. I see. From [i]your understanding[/i] of Scripture, eh? Well, I could just as easily respond that the Church [i]wrote[/i] Scripture, so any other exegesis that doesn't correspond with hers is incorrect.[/quote]

You could but I wouldn't listen.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.[/color]

Edited June 11, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

I need some help here, especially in regards to his last post about purgatory. How can there be a purgatory if our sin is not imputed to us at all, but to Christ?

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 11 2004, 06:34 PM'] The problem with this is that it assumes that our sins our counted against where salvation is concerned. This is simply not the case.

Romans 4:6-8 (KJV)
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Notice two things:

1. God imputes righteousness
2. God does not impute sin. [/quote]
He is taking a biased translation out of context and extracting from the text an idea which is in reality completely foreign to the mind of St. Paul. The word which the KJV translates as "imputeth" is [i]logizomai[/i]. The translation does not do justice to the word.

[quote][b]“And it Was Credited Unto Him as Righteouness”[/b]
[url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/SproulJustification.asp"]http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/Sp...stification.asp[/url]
We must now investigate one of the most popular Protestant arguments for the concept of imputed righteousness. This matter concerns the use of the Greek word logizomai translated as, “reckoned,” “credited,” “accepted,” “counted,” “considered.” The lexical definition carries several meanings as well: reckon, calculate, take into account, put on someone’s account, estimate, evaluate, look upon as, consider, think, dwell on, believe, be of the opinion of (Lexicons by Walter Bauer: pp. 475-476; and Liddell and Scott, p. 416). Protestant exegesis, especially that of Romans 4 where the Greek word logizomai appears twelve times, has consistently understood the word in the sense of “credited.” As noted earlier, the analogy drawn to describe the righteousness credited to Abraham in Romans 4 is that of an accountant giving a “credit” to Abraham’s ledger book, a credit that was secured completely by the work of Christ in the atonement. Abraham is understood as one who has “something to his credit” so that when God looks at his ledger book, as it were, he sees that, in accounting terms, Abraham is in the black. Evangelical Joel Beeke comments on this verb:

[quote]This very most often indicates ‘what a person, considered by himself, is not, or does not have, but is reckoned, held or regarded to be, or to have. It is clear then that when Abraham was justified by his faith, the righteousness which was reckoned or ‘charged to his account’ was a righteousness not his own but that of another, namely, the righteousness of Christ. (Justification by Faith Alone, p. 56).[/quote]

Unfortunately, Beeke presents a false premise which leads him to make a false conclusion. First, the Greek verb logizomai does not “most often indicate” what someone or something is merely “considered” to be but is not so in reality. The New Testament uses logizomai 41 times. Most of these refer to what someone is thinking as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing (cf., Lk 22:37; Rm 3:28; 6:11; 9:8; 1Co 4:1; 13:5, 11; Ph 3:13; 4:8; Hb 11:19, et al). Contrary to Beeke’s proposition, in only a few instances is logizomai used a mental representation of something that does not exist in reality (cf., Rm 2:26; 2Co 12:6). Hence, the preponderant evidence shows that logizomai denotes more of what is recognized or understood intrinsically of a person or thing than a mere crediting to the person or thing something that is not intrinsic to it.

In the case of Abraham, for example, we can understand the phrase “his faith is reckoned as righteousness” in Romans 4:5 such that God is recognizing or viewing Abraham’s faith as righteousness, or that God interpreted the faith Abraham demonstrated as righteousness, or both. This is very different from saying, as Beeke claims, that God “credited” Abraham with righteousness as if to say that Abraham was not really showing any righteous qualities when he demonstrated his faith but that God, because fo the alien righteousness of Christ, merely gave him the label of righteousness.[/quote]

Also of note is the context of St. Paul's quote from the Psalms. This is one of David's prayers of repentance after he had commited adultery and murder. David was certainly "saved" before this happened. By the time he commited his greivous sins he had already composed Scripture and been termed by Scripture "a man after God's own heart." But since St. Paul quotes David's prayer of repentance in a treatisie on justification, we know that David was justified by repenting. Hence he must have been unjustified by his sin. So, the meaning of this passage from Romans is that if we sin, God will reckon ([i]logizomai[/i]) us as sinful, because we are intrinsically sinful, and if we repent, He will reckon ([i]logizomai[/i]) us righteous, because he will forgive us and blot out our sins, and we will be intrinsically righteous.

[quote]If our sin is not counted against us how can a mortal sin place us outside of salvation?[/quote]
He has misunderstood Romans. Mortal sins will place us outside of salvation, and it is only when we repent (on God's tems, not ours; that means confessing to God's representative (OT prophet, NT priest)) that God will blot out our sins and not take them into account against us.

[quote]Isaiah 53:4-6 (KJV)
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Our sins are counted against Christ, not us.[/quote]
That Christ bore the burden of our sins and was wounded for our sins is a far cry from the Protestant idea that God credited Christ with our guilt and poured out His wrath upon him. The Catholic Church understands Scipture's saying that God laid the burden of our sins upon Christ differently than Protestants.

The Catholic Church views the atonement as a propitiatory sacrifice, not an exchange of guilt. The Father never credited Christ with the guilt of sin or poured out His wrath upon Him. Rather, Christ offered Himself as a gift to God on our behalf, asking in exchange for His obedience unto death only that the Father have mercy on mankind, relent of His righteous fury, and adopt His wayward creatures as His sons. The Father was supremely pleased with this gift, and granted His Son's request. Had Christ never offered Himself in this manner, no one would have ever satisfied the Father's justice and thus everyone who ever sinned would have gone to hell.

[quote]The Protestant view does not consider this trial by a fire a payment for sins but rather a testing of what we did on earth. That which was not for God will be burnt away and only that which was righteous and for God will remain.[/quote]
It is beyond my abilities to exegete this passage in depth. Try Robert Sungenis' tape "Is Purgatory Taught by the Bible?" The entire thing is devoted to this passage.

[quote]As I understand it, Catholicism still teaches that salvation can be lost. This, in my mind, necessitates that it be partially of works. A salvation that can be lost, is in my mind, another Gospel.[/quote]
Well, I agree. Catholicism is a different gospel from Protestantism. However, it is the Catholic gospel which is found in the pages of the Bible. But before go into the specific passages that teach salvation can be lost, I'd like to take this fellow through a small exercise in logic:

Faith is an act of the will in which man trusts God and believes everything which God has revealed to him. God infuses this virtue in us.

Holding onto faith and avoiding sin is also an act of the will. God causes our perseverance by grace.

If this fellow would apply his standards consistently, he would see that his assertion that having faith at one moment is a necessary condition for justification makes his soteriology just as anthropocentric and works-based as a soteriology in which having faith for one's entire life is a necessary condition for justification. As long as he maintains that man has to do something (have faith) in order to be saved, he has no logical grounds for denying that man might have to do something else (love, repent, work) to be saved, especially since in both cases God is the efficient cause of the thing man has to "do."

Alright, onto the Bible. I'm going to take this opportunity to link to my own website. [url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175"]Hananiah Apologetics[/url]. See the first blog entry. Feel free to copy paste it in the forum you are currently debating.

See also: [url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html#salvation-V"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html#salvation-V[/url]
John Salza, fellow traddie, summarizes the case against OSAS better than I could do.

[phatcatholic]

well done hananiah, well done

(phatcatholic and hananiah clank swords together)

[Hananiah]

Thanks, phatcatholic.

Boy, I was expecting fire and brimstone and "Hey where did you hear that!?!?"s when I mentioned that John Salza was a traddie.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 12 2004, 09:05 PM'] Boy, I was expecting fire and brimstone and "Hey where did you hear that!?!?"s when I mentioned that John Salza was a traddie. [/quote]
well, its news to me, but i don't really care............should i?

also, icthus........did hananiah answer all of ur questions?

need any more help?

holla back,
phatcatholic

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 12 2004, 01:25 AM'] This is my opponent's thesis:

[color=red]"Roman Catholics - Salvation is of works and grace and can be lost.
There are many mediators between God and man." [/color] [/quote]
Well, it's wrong.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John xiv:6)

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey Hananiah, I really liked that argument, but I have one question pertaining to that last issue. How, then, do we proceed with the debate against Lutherans, and the others who "slide past" that passage? What can we use to really solidify our stance and the Church's Teaching?

[Mickey's_Girl]

[quote]Pentecostal/Charismatics - Salvation is of works and grace and can be lost.[/quote]

FYI: As far as I've ever heard in my 15 years in the Assemblies of God (which is, I think, the largest Pentecostal denomination), "works" is not considered part of salvation. It's grace. You can "lose" salvation by *rejecting* grace.

[url="http://ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm#9"]AG Core Beliefs[/url]

I suppose if you stretch the idea of "works" to include "accepting the free gift of salvation", then okay. But I think that's unnecessary hair-splitting, particularly when we're discussing Catholic/Protestant differences.

MG

[yiannii]

What exactly is the main objection this person has? Is it the doctrine of Purgatory? or the doctrine of Salvation through works of faith and not faith alone?

[Hananiah]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 12 2004, 11:23 PM'] Hey Hananiah, I really liked that argument, but I have one question pertaining to that last issue. How, then, do we proceed with the debate against Lutherans, and the others who "slide past" that passage? What can we use to really solidify our stance and the Church's Teaching? [/quote]
I suppose if I were debating Purgatory with a Protestant who didn't believe in "once saved always saved" I would focus on other passages, such as 1 Cor 3:15, Matt 12:32, 1 Pet 3:10, etc.