The Weight of Gluttony No More

johnMark

Not long ago I posted Southern Baptists and the Weight of Gluttony. And God has blessed me from that post through a commenter named Jane. She went through the course I listed in the above mentioned post and has a great testimony I thought should have it's own entry and I don't want to take away from that by saying too much. For your consideration I do want to provide two recent articles reporting on the effects of obesity: The Global Problem of Obesity and Brits Find Obesity Deadlier Than Smoking.

Let's read Jane's testimony that she has graciously allowed me to share that she wrote as she finished the Setting Captives Free Course.

Before starting this course, how much I ate seemed to me to be completely disconnected from my spiritual life. I would go to church or a Bible study and then go home or out to eat and eat a big meal without giving it a second thought. I would snack throughout the day (while listening to Christian radio as I did my housework) and never realize how I was turning to food instead of Christ. To my shame, it didn’t occur to me to give the Lord control of my eating habits and patterns.

I have never been thin, but I really packed on the pounds over the course of two pregnancies. This excess weight didn’t come off even during my children’s busy toddler years. Sadly, I had convinced myself that I would always be overweight and that it was an area of my life that I would just have to live with.

I was blind and I had bought a lie!

God started speaking to me through this course as I worked through the very first lesson. The fact that God wanted me to learn about how to eat and drink to His glory struck a deep chord in my heart. I was absolutely delighted that God was very interested in demonstrating His strength as I sought to honor Him in what I ate and drank.

While doing this course I have learned about when it’s okay for me to eat and when I should refrain. I have learned to use scripture to combat urges to snack. I have studied about the proper role that food needs to have in my life and have turned more often to the true source of real satisfaction and nourishment; Jesus Christ.

My eating habits have drastically changed. I seldom eat between meals. I almost never eat after dinner. And I am exercising regularly.

The bottom line is that food doesn’t have the pull on me that it used to have. I have been set free.

I have lost over 20 pounds and I have a lot more weight to lose. My outside will eventually catch up with the change that has happened on my inside. I am so thankful that God is teaching me these lessons at this time in my life. I could have been in bondage for who knows how many more years or additional pounds, but instead God has used the truths in the course to change me forever. God is good, and faithful, and committed to sanctifying me to His glory alone. Blessed be the name of the Lord!

Thank you Setting Captives Free!

Thank you for the blessing Jane,

Mark

The Uncertainty of Infallibility

The lack of a list of infallible teachings by the RCC has been discussed here previously. We are often told by RC e-pologists that we Protestants suffer from uncertainty in faith and morals due to the lack of an infallible organization to lead us, yet RCs cannot even define their own body of infallible doctrine. Additionally, a few weeks ago I posted on my own blog about an old dispute (in the Catholic community) over whether or not a particular papal decree by JPII was actually infallible. Ironically, the confusion was bore out in the comments section where it was clear two Catholic commenters were still in disagreement over what exactly made the declaration infallible (although I think they may have figured it out eventually).

The comments in James’ previous post on the authorship of the Book of Hebrews has flushed out another interesting principle in regard to infallibility. It appears that not all portions of conciliar decisions and papal statements are infallible. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

"But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision."

The illusion of certainty in the RC position is quickly disappearing.

First, one must determine what documents and decrees could be considered infallible. Second, one must determine exactly what is or is not infallible within those documents/decrees. Is the determination of the above made fallibly or infallibly? And by whom is such a determination made?

(Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that a believer should know what is infallible before giving assent but we have yet to see an RC who can produce a list of all infallible statements. How can one assent to infallible doctrines that they can't clearly define?)

Gerry Matatics: Counterfeit Catholicism

James informed me that Gerry Matatics was speaking in my area this week, so I headed out Friday evening to attend one of his seminars. James attended one of Gerry’s seminars a year ago and wrote about his experience here. The overall content of the seminar wasn’t much different than what James described, but I thought I would add some additional details that I found interesting.

First, for those not familiar with Gerry, he was formerly an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) before converting to Catholicism where he became a mainstream Catholic apologist (formerly working with Catholic Answers and debating James White a few times in the early 1990s). More recently he has embraced Sedevacantism and seems to be devoting himself full-time to defending his beliefs (although he appears to not be too fond of the Sedevacantist title).

Gerry’s current “mega-tour of over 300 cities and towns”is focused on his current position that “a) the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church are the one true Faith and the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation (as both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition repeatedly affirm and as the Sacred Magisterium, or teaching office, of the Church has infallibly defined many times), but that b) that authentic Catholic Faith and that authentic Catholic Church are no longer found at the local parish, in the local diocese, or even ruling from Rome in our day.” Gerry’s seminar flier entitled “Counterfeit Catholicism” promised to share some “startling, eye-opening facts” over a 2 hour period follow with some Q&A time.

I am not sure if the particular seminar I attended would attest to the size (or makeup) of the sedevacantist following or not, but besides Gerry, there were 5 men and myself in the room. One man who was wearing what I believed to be a rather large rosary had his tape recorder but other than that, I was the only one taking copious notes (and the only one who brought my bible as suggested in the flier). Luckily, James had forwarned me about the opening prayer so I was prepared to not join in as “Our Lady” was called upon, followed my a Hail Mary, then some type of responsorial pray to Mary, followed by a rattled off list of saints to “pray for us” (I only caught St. Pius and St. Bellarmine).

Gerry then moved on to his presentation warning us up front that he would have to cut out some portions of his usual talk due to the time, but offering tapes for sale that cover the full material. After a quick joke he opened with 3 prophecies from “Our Lady of La Salette” (1846): “In the last days, Rome itself will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist ... the Church will be in eclipse". Gerry seems to believe these prophecies have come to fruition and goes on from here to support his belief from both biblical and more extra-biblical prophecies. He speaks quickly and covers a lot of material and rather than share my notes here, I would recommend you read a summary of the content of these seminars from his website (also briefly excerpted below).

It is clear that Gerry has spent a lot of time researching Church History, papal documents and I think he makes a good case that the Roman Catholic Church of today has broken away from many of her historical beliefs. I found it odd though that he seems to give a lot of credence to extrabiblical prophecies (listed under “fact #2 on his site). He spoke of “Our Lady of La Salette” more than once and also seemed intrigued by a supposed vision of Pope Leo XIII in 1888 which springboarded into accusations of freemasonry infiltration into the Church at the beginning of the 20 century (see Alta Vendita). At that point I began to wonder how many in the room really believe Oswald shot Kennedy.

For a small group, the Q&A was more lively than expected. Gerry’s presentation ended around 9:45pm and when I finally got up to leave at 10:50pm, the discussions were still continuing. I was disappointed that I didn’t get a chance to peruse Gerry’s book table as he had many sources there that he mentioned during his talk, but I did write down a few titles he particularly recommended and will list those books at the end of the post.

During the Q&A, Gerry claimed that there were a few bishops at the Vatican II council who refused to sign the documents and soon after retired, not agreeing with the changes made at that Council to “the faith”. He also mentioned that there are still some men living (but quite old) who were bishops under the reign of Pope Pius XII. Apparently Gerry has been tracking down these men and meeting with them to try and find one to step forward and reclaim the Church (denouncing Vatican II). While I don’t agree with his position anymore than the modern day RCC, I do have to give him credit for his persistence.

One of the questions during the Q&A mentioned the Dimond Brothers website which I decided to look up today. These guys appear to also be sedevacantists although they appear to have a beef with Gerry because he is a little soft on “baptism of desire”. Prior to going to Gerry’s presentation I came across this post from the Saint Benedict Center, a traditionalist group who while holding many traditional beliefs in common with Gerry, feel he has gone too far with his sedevacantistism. Looking around there appear to be a variety of Catholic splinter groups, some still in communion with Rome, who can’t seem to find complete unity in their beliefs.

To summarize, these are Gerry’s main points (excerpted from his site):

1. The Vatican II Church, though it has much in common with the Catholic Church, does teach doctrines, offer worship and sacraments, and promulgate laws that have all been previously condemned by the Catholic Church as being fundamentally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

2. The rise of such a counterfeit "church," successfully masquerading as the Catholic Church because a) composed of nearly all the former clergy and laity of the Catholic Church who lost their membership (and, in the case of the clergy, their offices) in the true Church by being spiritually seduced into subscribing to heresy, and b) possessing the real estate and controlling the infrastructure (chanceries, marriage tribunals, schools, colleges, universities and seminaries, publishing houses, etc.) formerly owned and operated by the true Church, has been foretold by numerous prophecies given, not only in Sacred Scripture but also by Our Lady and numerous saints -- including, Popes, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church.

3. …next in the talk we examine the beliefs of the men who have sat on the throne of St. Peter since the death of Pius XII in 1958: John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I & II, and Benedict XVI. An examination of their writings, speeches, and actions readily reveals that these men were not orthodox Catholics -- even before their elections -- but modernists and manifest heretics, Freemasons, and abettors of Communism (yes, even John Paul II) and Talmudic Judaism.

4. This in turn means that, as unlawful usurpers of the papacy, John XXIII had no authority to call, and Paul VI no authority to consummate, a lawful and valid general council of the Church. The therefore illicit and invalid council John XXIII and Paul VI did, respectively, call and conclude would not and could not enjoy the protection and infallibility of the Holy Ghost.

Summary: "the only possible conclusion is that what is found in Rome, in your diocese, and at your local parish is no longer the Catholic Church, but the above-mentioned clever counterfeit that God Himself has permitted to take over the infrastructure of the Church, in order to fulfill His prophecies and plans. One who denies this conclusion by arguing that, while these modern doctrines, worship, and laws are not fully Catholic, the Vatican II Church which offers them is nevertheless the Catholic Church, rejects the teaching of Pius XII (and other popes) that the true Church can never offer such aberrations. In thus rejecting the Church's authoritative teaching regarding its own fidelity and purity, such a person shows he is not a Catholic at all -- he himself has become a "counterfeit Catholic"."

Some books recommended by Gerry:
Tumultuous Times
The Popes Against Modern Errors
The Ottaviani Intervention

Mystery Solved: The Author of the Book of Hebrews Revealed

[revised 10/21/07, 9:36 AM with additional commentary]


Ever wonder who wrote Hebrews? Was it Barnabas? Apollos? Priscilla? ...or Paul?

Tertullian (c.200) says it was Barnabas. He is cited as the earliest Western witness to the author of Hebrews. Well, it really doesn't matter what Tertullian said way back when. The Roman Catholic Church has repeatedly declared it to be Paul, so it infallibly must be Paul:

Synod of Laodicea. a.d. 343–381. Canon LX:
"Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon."


The Canons of the CCXVII Blessed Fathers who assembled at Carthage. Commonly Called The Code of Canons of the African Church. a.d. 419. Canon XXIV: "The New Testament....The Epistles of Paul, xiv."

The Canons of the Holy and Altogether August Apostles (Appendix containing Canons and Rulings not having Conciliar Origin but Approved by Name in Canon II. of the Synod in Trullo.) Canon LXXXV: "...those of the New Testament, are.... fourteen Epistles of Paul"

Council of Trent: "Of the New Testament: fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews"


Eric Svendsen points out,

"Until the latter half of the fourth century the Western church almost unanimously resisted ascribing Pauline authorship to Hebrews [Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and the Muratorian Fragment all insist that Paul is not the author]. However, both Jerome and Augustine appealed to the Eastern Church's view that Paul wrote the epistle, and their view was eventually adopted at the Sixth Synod of Carthage in 419 A.D., and then reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. Yet, the number of New Testament scholars that would defend Pauline authorship today is practically nil. [Source: Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists (New York: Reformation Press, 1999), p.11].


The Catholic Encyclopedia points out:

"While the Council of Carthage of the year 397, in the wording of its decree, still made a distinction between Pauli Apostoli epistoloe tredecim (thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle) and eiusdem ad Hebroeos una (one of his to the Hebrews) (H. Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 92, old n. 49), the Roman Synod of 382 under Pope Damasus enumerates without distinction epistoloe Pauli numero quatuordecim (epistles of Paul fourteen in number), including in this number the Epistle to the Hebrews (Denzinger, 10th ed., n. 84). In this form also the conviction of the Church later found permanent expression. Cardinal Cajetan (1529) and Erasmus were the first to revive the old doubts, while at the same time Luther and the other Reformers denied the Pauline origin of the letter."

___________________________________________
Addendum: A few comments and responses from the comment section:

Turretinfan stated:

"Your faithful readers will note "Theodoret of Cyrrhus" among the early (beginning of the 5th century) advocates of Pauline authorship, from your immediately preceding post."

Theodoret's comment was what actually got me thinking about this. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter who wrote Hebrews, since the author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, I think it's interesting what happens when a group declares itself "infallible." Svendsen points out that in DA Carson's introduction to the book of Hebrews, the last major defense of Pauline authorship was written in 1939.

My New Catholic Answer Bible doesn't make any statement one way or the other, and this on a book whose authorship was confirmed at Trent! This was not the case for an earlier generation of Catholic apologists. Note this statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"From what has been said it follows that the most probable solution of the question as to the author is that up to the present time the opinion of Origen has not been superseded by a better one. It is, consequently, necessary to accept that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the actual author is to be distinguished from the writer. No valid reason has been produced against Paul as the originator of the ideas and the entire contents of the letter; the belief of the early Church held throughout with entire correctness to this Apostolic origin of the Epistle."

My questions to the mass of Roman Catholics that have over-run the comments section of this blog is this: Since Trent is infallible, can we safely assume Paul wrote Hebrews?

That granted, If I start searching through recent Roman Catholic commentaries on Hebrews, and find your writers not simply following an infallible pronouncement on this Pauline authorship, can we conclude that the misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source?

If you grant this, I will further argue it is simply ridiculous for Roman Catholics to hold Protestants to a standard they themselves can’t live up to. That some people misinterpret or twist the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my computer incorrectly is not the fault of the owner’s manual that comes with it. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source, and Trent's statement on the Pauline authorship of Hebrews proves it.

Lucian stated:

"This comment is not meant to be a mean, ill-intended, poisonous arrow aimed at good Protestants (like my oher ones), ... but You have to understand here something (technical in nature) : There are five books *traditionally* ascribed to Solomon; and the fifth is *likewise traditionally* ascribed to Jesus, son of Sirach. There's more to ascribing a book to someone, other than just mere writing or authorship. *Also traditionally*, the entire Psalter is ascribed to the hand of the Holy Prophet and King David, but even Scripture itself makes it pretty clear that many of its Psalms were fathered from completely different persons other than the King himself. Hope this helps."

Clever, but no, it does not. Note the comment above from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Paul, not some vague notion of ascribing "Paul" as the author, was the intent of an earlier generation of Catholics. Is this the defense now, that Trent and earlier councils simply meant to ascribe Pauline authorship similar to David's authorship of the entirety of the Psalms? If that is so, I find the Catholic Encyclopedia's argument...odd.

But even worse, if your argument is the standard current Roman Catholic argument, it shows that infallible documents (like Trent) are open to private interpretation. In other words, what a typical Catholic claims provides certainty, is open to private judgment. I can either believe you, or the Catholic Encyclopedia. How do I choose which opinion is correct?

Note I have used two typical Roman Catholic arguments: the need for an infallible authority for certainty, and the blueprint for anarchy argument. If both arguments can be used against the Romanist position, it should make one stop and consider what it means for the Romanist position. I think it should be obvious: The Roman Catholic paradigm does not properly interpret the facts of reality. If they use arguments that can be applied to their own position, it shows their arguments are not valid arguments.
___________________________________
A recent comment (10/22/07):

Kepha stated:

"I thought Ecumenical Councils, like the Pope, were only infallible in the area of Faith and Morals. If this is correct, then a conciliar attribution of Pauline authorship is not infallible."

I'm going on the information commonly put out by Catholic apologists. For instance, if I recall, Scott Hahn argues that only the RCC can provide the information as to historical authorship of the New Testament books. For instance, how does the Protestant know, Matthew wrote Matthew? Catholic apologists argue they know because Rome has told them. If indeed Trent is only infallible in the area of area of faith and morals, I would be interested in reading any information as to, who determines which is is which and which is not, as applied to Trent.

and just one last point: I would argue, that if Catholic apologists use the "Who wrote Matthew?" argument to prove the necessity of the RCC in establishing certainty, then any information as to "who wrote which book" contained in Trent, or any other offical infallible RCC document is indeed crucial to faith and morals. How could it not be, if the argument being put fort as to New Testament authorship is meant to convince a Protestant of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church?

An Ancient Voice For The Day #22

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) states in the preface to his commentary on the Letter to the Hebrews:

"Those who give admittance to the Arian disease are doing nothing unexpected in raging against the apostolic writings, separating the letter to the Hebrews from the others and calling it spurious. After all, if they direct their diatribes aganist God and our Savior, what would they stop at in opposition to his kindly and eloquent heralds of truth? It was in fact the Lord himself who said, “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.” They ought, however, if nothing else, at least respect the length of time the Church’s nurslings have spent reading this letter in the churches; from the time the churches of God had access to the apostolic writings, they have been reaping the benefit of the letter to the Hebrews. Now, if even this does not suffice to persuade them, they should at least have given credence to the Palestinian Eusebius, whom they class as a supporter of their own teachings: he admitted this letter to be by the most divine Paul, and said all the ancient commentators held the same view of it. Insisting with everyone, however, that the disease is not on their part, they shamelessly resist the truth, unable to bear the brightness of the insight into divine things on the part of the apostle with which he adorned the opening; they were unable to resist what is clearly stated about the divinity of the Only-begotten, and so presumed to reject the whole letter, despite its teachings and other arguments having a clear relationship with the other letters."

Source: Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 136 .


Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) states in the preface to his commentary on the Letter to the Hebrews:

"This is surely the reason the divine apostle at the very opening presents him [i.e. Christ] as superior to all the inspired authors. Then beginning with the true doctrine about God, he shows him to be eternal, equally eternal with the Father, and creator of all things. Next, after comparing him with the angels, he brings the divine Scripture to the fore, which clearly teaches that whereas he is Son and God, they are servants and creatures."

Source: Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 137.


Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Hebrews 1:3:

"Since the image of the effulgence gave sufficient indication of their shared eternity and oneness in being, while providing those under the baleful influence of the positions of Sabellius and Photinus with no grounds for their blasphemy, the effulgence having no subsistence of its own, he eliminates this blasphemy by means of of a different image as well."

Source: Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 140.


Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Hebrews 1:2-3:

"Likewise the blessed Paul called him Son to show him to be different from the Father in regard to personhood; he spoke of him as creator of the ages to bring out in these ways his eternity, and called him also effulgence of glory to indicate by this his shared eternity and the sameness of being, the effulgence being of the nature of the fire. He added that he is imprint of his substance to bring out both things at the same time, that he subsists of himself and that he reveals in himself the paternal characteristics. He adds also something else: carrying all things by the word of his power: he not only made everything but also directs and guides it. He brought out the surpassing degree of his power by saying a word was sufficient for him for the creation and care of everything; he said, remember, “Let there be light, and there was light,” and he said, “Let a firmament be made, and so it was made,” and all the other things in similar fashion. Likewise also blessed David, “He spoke, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created.” On seeing this unambiguous doctrine of God, those of the mind of Arius endeavored to reject this letter from the apostolic treasury — hence our showing it to be consistent with the evangelical teaching."

Source: Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), pp. 140-141.


For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.

The Pope's email address

The Pontificator said:

It does not surprise me in the least that individual Catholics, especially if they have not studied the matter in depth, will get one or more of the particulars wrong.

and then

I took the liberty of correcting David because I happen to know more about the Catholic view of justification than a lot of folks.

This raises some questions in my mind, which are all serious questions, not rhetorical:
1) How do I know you're not getting it wrong?
2) Why doesn't your priest blog for you?
3) Come to think of it, why doesn't the Magisterium take care of this kind of thing so as to make sure RC dogma doesn't go astray?
4) Can you make the obvious connection between:

Magisterial teaching VS how it is represented by individual RCs

and

Biblical teaching VS how it is represented by individual Prots ?

Then he says:

But my opinions still remain my opinions and are subject to correction by Catholics who know more than I.

How about by the Magisterium? Why not by them?
And if by them, will you tell me with a straight face that you have a way to communicate with one or more members thereof? If so, how? Email? Telephone?
I guess I'm asking, echoing Steve Hays, why those of our RC readers who object to things we say here don't take those things to their priest in order to make sure we here at the blog can get the Magisterial answer to stuff. Why don't the Pope and/or Magisterium do their own apologetics?

Bush vs. Carter: Theological Differences?

johnMark

Very recently at Emory University former President Jimmy Carter gave a talk about faith. The difficulties of being theologian and chief international religious conflict came up.

On the topic of international religious conflict, President Carter referred to his term in office.

“I was president once, in ancient times,” he joked, adding, “I had some difficult discussions at Camp David with people of different faiths, but we acknowledged that we were all children of Abraham.”

The recently President Bush had an interview with Al Arabiya at the White House.

Well, first of all, I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe.

Evangelicals got their man, but now they've got to apologize for his theology while pointing the finger at Carter about how liberal he is. Yes, Carter is liberal and Bush may even be conservative, but that won't save them.

This reminds me of John MacArthur's sermon Can God Bless America? that he turned into a small hardback book.

So what's the real difference?

Mark

An X File From Jimmy Akin

Pope JP2 returns from the grave as the Human Torch. Read all about it here.

NOT as a result of works

The usual Roman Catholic claim regarding the interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-10 was recently repeated, that the works by which we are not saved are works of human invention and/or are works of the now-obsolete Old Testament law. I'd like to devote a post to dealing with this by itself. This is mostly, ISTM, an exegetical question.

8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Now, let's be clear - our RC friends are saying that justification is at least PARTLY due to works, ie, justification is not by faith alone.
As for this passage, let us note how the ***same*** good works that God has prepared for us to do are the same works that are *NOT* the cause of our salvation. So if the 1st "works" are works of human invention or of the OT Law, then why isn't the 2nd "works" the same?

How can this be (pardon the pun) justified in the RC view?

By Grace Alone is by Faith Alone

"Some Romanists will say that they too teach justification by grace — by Christ’s righteousness, in fact. But the righteousness of Christ which they claim justifies is not Christ’s own personal righteousness reckoned or credited or given or imputed to believers. Romanists refer to the righteousness which Christ works into the life of the believer or infuses into him in his own living and behavior. It is not Christ’s personal righteousness but the believer’s personal righteousness, which he performs by the grace of God.

It is Christ’s righteousness versus the believer’s own righteousness. It is Christ’s achievement versus the Christian’s achievement. It is an imputed righteousness not an infused righteousness. It is a gift of God versus an accomplishment of man. These two righteousnesses are as different as righteousnesses could conceivably be.

It does come down to the way it has been popularly stated for the last four and a half centuries: Protestantism’s salvation by faith versus Rome’s salvation by works. That is not a technically accurate way to state this vital difference, But it points to the truth. The Protestant trusts Christ to save him and the Catholic trusts Christ to help him save himself. It is faith versus works. Or, as the Spirit of God puts it in Romans 4:16 (NIV), "Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace, and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring." It is "by faith SO THAT IT MAY BE BY grace...."

If a Romanist wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. "The promise comes by faith so that it may be by grace." You can’t be saved "sola gratia" except "sola fide"...

...We agree with Roman friends — salvation is by grace. That is the reason it must be by faith. If it is a salvation based on works that come from grace, it is not based on grace but on the Christian’s works that come from grace. The works that come from grace must prove grace but they cannot be grace. They may come from, be derivative of, a consequence of, but they cannot be identified with it. Faith is merely union with Christ who is our righteousness, our grace, our salvation."

-Excerpt from Justification by Faith Alone by Dr. John H. Gerstner

Double Standards, Presuppositions, and Determining Truth

Here are two comments from a recent Beggars All comm box, that when juxtaposed, point out one of the double standards used by Roman Catholics. In other words, the arguments put forth, when applied to their own position, refute their own position.

Argument 1:
"But then, Holy Writ is CLEAR…clear after 1500 years! (For it took Luther to “discover the Gospel” which was lost…uhhh…unknown…)"

Argument 2
"Altaner,the patrologist from Würzburg...had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the fifth century."

In argument #1, sola fide is untrue because Luther's understanding of justification cannot be traced in the particular formulation he used backward in church history. For sake of argument, grant this is true, and then apply the same standard to argument #2. Should it not follow that Mary's assumption is not true because it cannot be traced in the particular formulation first noted in the 5th century backward in church history?

Now think further along these lines using the same methodology Roman Catholics use. The dogma of the assumption is the product of development. Its earlier formulations are not as clear or complete. For instance, the Byzantine theologians in the 7th- 9th centuries more-a-less think Mary's soul was taken to Heaven. But by the end of the development in the 1950's, Mary's soul and body are in Heaven. Now, keep your Roman Catholic glasses on. Earlier formulations of justification say faith is required in justification. With the advent of the Reformation, the Reformed Biblical exegetes arrive at faith alone. Development has occurred. But yet, the development of sola fide is false, and the development of the assumption is true. What makes the final developed Assumption true and the final developed sola fide false? ...The infallible church.

Roman Catholics want to argue for development, while arguing against development. They should say, "...sure doctrine develops, but it is only true development if our infallible church says so." This is pure sola ecclesia. Really then, it doesn't matter what happens in development, because only the infallible church can tell you what is correct or incorrect development. Thus, the study of historical development becomes trivial and meaningless.

Arguing for truth as Roman Catholics do, does much more harm to their position than they realize when the same standards are applied to their arguments. The big question that needs to be asked is, "How is truth determined?" Is it determined by a statistical analysis of church history? Roman Catholics may try to argue along these lines, but let us not forget Athanasius, showing that one can stand seemingly alone with the truth against the universally accepted falsehood of the day.

Truth, as finally determined by the current batch of Catholic apologists, is ultimately determined by the infallible church. This is their beginning presupposition, and each engagement with those committed to Rome should never lose site of this.

Fan Club Testimonial

This was simply too good to not share:

"Catholic apologists do I admit get a little less then scholarly when the report on Luther. However James Swan is not exactly exempt from mis-reporting the fact either. He misrepresented the popes theology on Scripture. He made the false claim that the pope was condeming the position of "Material Sufficiency" when in fact he was not. So James Swan is not perfect either.

Luther was not stupid, neither were the other reformers, however Luther did have some daddy issues, and I think one would have to stick their head in the sand to maintain his daddy issues did not affect his abberent theology of God.

In any case BOTH sides have an agenda to push. Swan's agenda is to show that Luther was 100% right to break from the Church, and begin the "Reformation Movement." In other words Swan wants to show that Lutheranism is the pure form of Catholocism, and that Catholocism got off track. The Lutherans in his mind, as well as the Lutherans themselves are what true Catholocism looks like- purged of all the barnicles such as Mary, the pope, Purgatory, etc.

The Catholic apologist on the other hand wants to show that Luther was wrong to break from the Church, and that while some of his thesis were correct, and indeed reform was needed, that he went to far by breaking from the Church and not submiting to the authority. The Catholic apologist wants to show that the RCC is the one true Church, and while always in need of reform, and always reforming, that the reformation churches which stem from the reformation are not the true Christian Church.

Thus, James Swan as well as other Lutherans are going to want to tend to minimize some of the more embarrasing facts about Luther. They will also want to minimize some of his very Catholic thought like devotion to Mary, etc. James Swan does exactly this on his website. Catholic apologists on the other hand will of course want to draw emphasis to them, and even exagerate them. Each side interprets the facts according to their own agendas, and of course it is no different when reading the ECF, and the Bible itself. That happens.

So in short, I agree that the Catholic apologists in their zealousness to defend the One True Church, do exagerate and distort facts. However so do protestants. James Swan and pals are just as guilty.

Here is the thing:

1) I can readily admit some of the embarrasing facts about Roman Catholocism. I can readily grant the errors of our popes, especially James White's very best excellent friend Pope Honorius. (Of course I am giving him the benifit of the doubt that White is correct in his understanding of history and the incident with him.) I can readily admit that the RCC is far from perfect, and that some of our doctrines can seem to be difficult to defend. None of this affects my Faith, none of this gets me to even consider that the RCC is not the Church of Christ. Why? Becasue Faith is not always easily demonstrable, since Faith is something supernatural. I can't always defend in a rational manner, and a scientific something that transcends their boundaries. This leads me to my next thought:

2) Why can't James Swan just admit the embarrasing facts about Luther, and admit his very Catholic thoughts on Purgatory, Mary, etc. Even James White admitted Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary in a debate- then said "But I hold Calvin to the same standard he holds me: The Bible." In other words- White even admited that Calvin would not have agreed with him on many issues. White didn't care. It as far as he was concerned was a non-issue for him. So why can't Swan simply admit the facts, rather then minimize them, and go from there? If what Pope Honorious taught or untaught doesn't affect my Faith, why should Luther's devotion to Mary affects Swan's?

In the end, I can say to White "Yeah, Honorius may have been a heretic- if I give you the benifit of the doubt. So what? What do you think that proves, besides Pope Honorious made a mistake?" Why can't swan just say "Yeah, Luther was very Catholic in some of his theology, there were some embarrasing things Luther did and taught that I wish he did not, but what does that prove, except that Luther made a few errors?" I mean, even if Swan admits Luther did and said the embarrasing things he is accused of saying and doing by Catholic apologists, would Swan even consider for even one milli-second that Catholocism might be right? So what does it really matter in the end what Luther did and said, or what he undid or unsaid? Swan is Lutheran, and Lutheran he will stay regardless of the facts."

Trinity vs. Assumption

This is almost sad in a way. Ryan L. over on the Catholic Answers forum posted the following:

Marian Apologetics - An Easy One
"On James White's blog, protestant Apologist James Swan posted about something from Steve Ray's blog. In effect, it attacked the Marian dogmas en masse. This is a very poor showing of the apologetics being produced from that camp, so I thought it would be a nice article for beginning Catholic apologists to pick apart. I'm going to post the whole article, so I trust that if the mods think it's too long they'll edit it appropriately."

"I would like for folks to start with the logical errors / false argumentation used before moving to the Biblical basis for the dogmas, but please feel free to post as you see fit."
God Bless, Ryan L

Well, so far, this post has been up on the Catholic Answers apologetics forum for a few days, and hasn't gotten any responses. This is fairly odd, because usually the Catholic Answers boards are teeming with responses (the good, the bad, and the ugly). I expected something.

Well for those of you who read my aomin entry about the comparison of the doctrine of the Trinity to some of the Marian dogma's, you may recall I stated:

"For the defenders of Rome to make their parallel between the Trinity and the Marian dogmas, they would have to demonstrate the Marian dogmas are the result of God's people dealing with, and only with, God's Word. Recall a few days ago I mentioned The New Catholic Answer Bible stated, "Is Mary's assumption described in the Bible? No, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen." Here is as blatant a denial of true Biblical doctrinal development as one can find."

This statement and Ryan L.'s post are brought into a state of irony by this recent Catholic Answers post:

Scriptural basis for the Assumption

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary's assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the "woman," clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary's bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary's bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

This post on the Assumption proves my point. I would argue Roman Catholics are forced to begin with the Assumption, and then secondarily seek to refer back to Scripture for support or implicit proofs. So if there is any development here, it is backward development. It is taking a developed concept and seeking to read it back into Scripture. The Roman Catholic Marian dogma of the Assumption is not mined from Scripture. The assumption is not the result of God's people delving deeper and deeper into God's Word. It is not the result of using Scripture to interpret Scripture. It is not the result of in-depth exegetical studies. It is an idea found outside of Biblical revelation.

"Sola Ecclesia"

Since the use of the term “sola ecclesia” is being questioned in the previous post, I thought I would try to briefly clarify (since Rhology is on hiatus).

In regards to the rule of faith, "Sola Ecclesia = Church Alone" as "Sola Scriptura = Scripture Alone".

From the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading “THE CHURCH AS THE RULE OF FAITH”:

This follows necessarily from any adequate view of the Church as a Divinely constituted body, to whose keeping is entrusted the deposit of faith, but the grounds for this doctrine may be briefly stated as follows…If faith is necessary for all men at all times and in all places, and if a true saving faith demands a clear knowledge of what we have to believe, it is clear that an infallible teaching Church is an absolute necessity. Such a Church alone can speak to men of all classes and at all times; it alone can, by reason of its perpetuity and ageless character, meet every new difficulty by a declaration of the sound form of doctrine which is to be held. If the teaching of Christ and His Apostles is distorted, none but the Church can say "This is its true meaning, and not that; I know that it is as I say because the Spirit which assists me is One with the Spirit which rested on Him and on them"; the Church alone can say, "Christ truly rose from the tomb, and I know it, because I was there, and saw the stone rolled back". The Church alone can tell us how we are to interpret the words "This is My Body", for she alone can say, He Who spoke those words speaks through me, He promised to be with me all days, He pledged Himself to safeguard me from error at all times".

Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia blog debate

Though I'm on a short hiatus, I'm pulling a centuri0n and calling attention to the debate blog between TurretinFan and Orthodox, who frequently comments here. It's very interesting so far and I'd encourage you to take a look.

Necessary for Salvation

Catholic Catechism:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation…

1277 Baptism...is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself...

183 Faith is necessary for salvation…

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation…

980 …This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation…

846 ...the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation...

1816 …Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation…

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

837 …Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation…

2068 …so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.


Council of Trent:

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 IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.


Catechism of St. Pius:

39 Q: What are the conditions necessary to obtain Heaven?
A: The conditions necessary to obtain Heaven are the grace of God, the practice of good works, and perseverance until death in His holy love.


Baltimore Catechism
Q. 476. Is grace necessary to salvation?
A. Grace is necessary to salvation, because without grace we can do nothing to merit heaven.

Q. 477. Can we resist the grace of God?
A. We can, and unfortunately often do, resist the grace of God.

Q. 478. Is it a sin knowingly to resist the grace of God?
A. It is a sin, knowingly, to resist the grace of God, because we thereby insult Him and reject His gifts without which we cannot be saved.

Q. 479. Does God give His grace to every one?
A. God gives to everyone He creates sufficient grace to save his soul; and if persons do not save their souls, it is because they have not used the grace given.

Luther's Use of Reason (AKA: Atheists Need To Do Some Homework)

From my mailbox:

"Here's an alleged Luther quotation that is being at least misapplied by some atheists: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." (source) I know you are one of the on-line experts when it comes to debunking Luther misuse, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Perhaps, if you have time, you could respond to this particularly outspoken atheist website."

Ah, Atheists, freethinkers, skeptics, and agnostics love these type of Luther quotes. I could send them 50 similar in content to put on their websites and blogs. Unfortunately, they usually have no idea what Luther actually means. The person above may actually grip it a bit, but after reading his de-conversion story, I was impressed by the fact, once again, that there is no happy union between Jerusalem and Athens, particularly since Athens steals capital from the worldview of Jerusalem.

Note his commentary on the above Luther quote: "Martin Luther could scarcely have worded it better. For the greater part of my life, I held a faith that I believed was unified with reason." I would suggest, fallen, unregenerate reason, will never produce a faithful Christian worldview. This person was bound to a non-Christian position.

He then says, "I was a devout Christian in every sense of the word, living a life for Christ and striving to place him (or at least my perception of him) at the center of all my endeavors." I would note, he was devout not in every sense of the word, because he sought to unite some form of natural theology with Christian theology. This is a recipe for failure.

He comments, "... I committed the same crime of reason that nearly all believers are guilty of committing throughout the whole of their walk: I never truly questioned my faith." I would suggest, he has not even begun to question his faith. If he was trained like I was in secular philosophy, he would be faced with questioning every aspect of his very being, and arriving where I did: everything, and I mean everything, is reducible to faith a claim. It is not simply Christians who begin with basic presuppositions, it is everyone. At some point, every person can be reduced down to some unproven beginning point. It is simply naive to think Christians accept things on faith, while others do not.

Now, this particular de-conversion story appears to be from a youngster, so I expect him to think reality is not what his parents told him, and he now knows better. He is welcome to e-mail me privately, and I will gladly send him the Bahnsen Stein debate, free, and answer whatever epistemological questions he has.

But, as to the Luther quote: This quote comes from the older version of Luther's Tabletalk. Here is the context:

The anabaptists pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.

An immediate comment must be made: Luther did not write this. The Tabletalk is a collection of sayings attributed to Luther, written down by either his students or friends. That being said, note the context: Luther is responding to Anabaptists who say children should not be baptized. Luther insists that they should, and adds that their reasoning against it is not Biblical reasoning. Whether you agree with Luther or not, something should strike the reader as very odd: Luther is using "reasoning" to denigrate reason! What is going on here?

Luther was quite familiar with “reason.” It is usually the situation that those examining Luther’s use of “reason” lack a significant understanding of his theology. My comments below are largely based on my notes on lectures by Lutheran scholar Robert Kolb, and Siegbert Becker's book, The Foolishness of God (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1999). Becker's books is, in my opinion, the best book in print on Luther's use of reason.

When Luther approached the Scriptures, he rejected the medieval use of the logical, “ergo” (therefore). He thought that theology is not systematic theological "reasoning." It is not simply the matter of moving from one human conclusion to another. Theology is always a matter of “denote.” For instance, instead of making an argument X + Y therefore= Z, Luther would express the same argument by his use of “nevertheless.” That is, X + Y nevertheless Z. A good example of this would be Luther's approach to the atonement and predestination. Luther believed that specific individuals were chosen and predestined, and that Christ died for these specific individuals. This is Calvinism 101. Nevertheless, according to Luther, Christ died for every single human being. His blood was shed for every single person. This is not Calvinism 101. Do you know what this called? Paradox. Luther was the king of paradox.

Luther though, did not reject natural theology completely (even though he felt it gave rise to false theology attempting to define the “hidden God”). Still, he didn’t think it worth a whole lot. For Luther, God reveals himself in the Scriptures or in the sacraments. Here alone God becomes present to reveal himself.

But what about general revelation? Does not God also reveal Himself there as well? Luther believed that man through philosophy can know something about God, but it cannot determine what God’s attitude toward us is, or how He wants to relate to us. This crucial knowledge can only be known by revelation.

Luther rejected the popular “prove it” mentality found in the popular theology of his day. The popular theology demanded “signs” (empirical epistemology), and also demanded “wisdom” (rational epistemology). In Luther’s concept of the “theology of the cross,” he posited a different presupposition about human knowledge and salvation. In terms of knowledge, God has placed himself above human control; He reveals Himself in the promise that elicits faith. Sometimes these promises will not seem rational to fallen human beings.

In Luther’s theology, faith is a gift from God. God is in charge of our hearing His Word and our learning of Him. God controls access to Himself. The human heart responds to God by faith. God must step out of “hiding” and reveal himself to us. He doesn’t reveal Himself with signs or wisdom (through empirical epistemology or rational epistemology). He reveals Himself with a promise that invites faith. We know God only by the faith that He creates in us. Faith is active and embraces God. Faith places us at the mercy of God. God informs us that the baby in the crib is God almighty, and the tortured man on the cross is God almighty. Human reasoning will never arrive at this, that the supreme God of all reality is found crying in a crib or suffering in agony on a cross. Only faith will embrace this, and if you think about it, it is quite a paradox... that God is found most clearly in a crib or a cross.

In a “traditional” concept of faith, faith is put into something that we can empirically or rationally verify. With this mind, Luther says by looking at the God of the Bible, one comes to know a “weak and foolish God,” since this God is not known by wisdom and signs (or by a process we can control). The God of the Bible reveals himself in what “reason” would think is foolishness: God is found in a crib, and on a cross.

Luther though, must not be seen as rejecting human reason. He did teach that God had fashioned His human creatures so we could learn a great deal about Him through empirical ways of learning, but reason was always to play the role of a servant. Hence, when one reads strong statements by Luther against reason (say, in some anti-Luther work from the late 19th Century), one must keep in mind that Luther valued reason, but it must be the “handmaid” to theology. It must be the servant. It is not that Luther didn’t understand the use of “reason,” it is simply the fact that “reason” must be kept in its place in theological matters.

I have only one question to ask the Atheist using this quote. While he claimed to be a Christian, did he ever read 1 Corinthians 1?

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.

Catholic Historian on Trent and Salvation

Perhaps I am reading him incorrectly, but I have a feeling that Catholic historian Henri Daniel-Rops would be considered out-of-touch with "cutting-edge Catholic thought", especially as it relates to the interpretation of Trent. Daniel-Rops seems to recognize that the Reformation occurred for a reason and that Protestant and Catholic soteriology aren't as similar as some modern-day Catholics propose. In his book The Catholic Reformation, Daniel-Rops had this to say about the Council of Trent:

“The part played in the great debate by Luther, Calvin and the rest was exactly that recognized long since by St. Paul, in a celebrated passage to the Corinthians [1 Cor 11:19] as belonging to heretics. On the spiritual plane the Catholic revival…owed nothing to anti-Protestant endeavours; but on the doctrinal level the blows delivered by the heretics led the Church to discern more clearly those points of her structure which were threatened and to reinforce them accordingly. Every one of the great Protestant theses was surveyed by the Council, which opposed to it the Catholic truth, especially the three fundamentals bearing upon revelation and the bases of doctrine, upon the role of faith, works and grace, and upon the sacraments with particular reference to the Eucharist.”

…Luther won many followers by his doctrine of justification by faith, even while Calvin preached the terrible thesis of predestination in the cathedral of St. Peter in Geneva. Against these theories the Council took its stand...Luther and Calvin place no confidence in man. The Council of Trent has such confidence, because man bears within himself an ineffable likeness, which no defilement can erase. This is not to say that he is unscathed; original sin is there sure enough, and is minutely defined in five canons. But, darkened as it is by sin, human nature is not irremediably affected. Reason and will are damaged, but it is not true that they are without clear-sightedness, integrity and energy. What God asks of man is that he should co-operate fully in the work of his salvation, certain meanwhile that his effort is vain without grace, but equally assured that grace will not be refused to him so long as he remains faithful. Works therefore are necessary; faith alone is not enough. A Christian guilty of mortal sin is deprived of grace and condemned, even though he believes. Considerable stress is laid upon this double role of faith and works in decrees of the sixth session (thirty-three canons in sixteen chapters), which are due in large measure to the saintly Cardinal Cervini, afterwards Pope Marcellus II. Justification is not secured by faith alone, still less by Luther’s “conviction” of being justified. It requires human effort as well as the operation of God’s mercy.”

…Thus on all essential points of difference between Catholic tradition and heretical doctrine the Council speaks and resolutely determines what is to be believed. Its achievement is of capital importance, assuring to the Church stability of her foundations, removing revealed truth from the arena of debate, establishing rules which none henceforward can reject without lapsing into error.”

The Catholic Reformation by Henri Daniel-Rops (pgs 96-98)
First Published in France, 1955
Nihil obstat: Joannes M.T. Barton, S.T.D.,L.S.S., Censor deputatus
Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vic. Gen., Westmonasterii, die 21a Novembris, 1961

Worship and the Theology of the Cross In One Sentence

johnMark

I just want to share some thoughts as we prepare for the Lord's Day. Why are we going to worship the Lord tomorrow or any other day? Are we going to get an experience out of it like a trip to the zoo? Are we to seek an emotional experience like you get at the end of watching Old Yeller? Sinners that we are I believe these attitudes can creep in and we can think like that which is a reason that our journey doesn't end when by God's grace we come to faith in Jesus Christ. It begins.

At the same time, for example, when a very popular and influential pastor writes the following words that I stumbled upon we can begin to think too highly of ourselves.

Worship is not for your benefit. As a pastor, I receive notes that say, “I loved the worship today. I got a lot out of it.” This is another misconception about worship. It isn’t for our benefit! We worship for God’s benefit. When we worship, our goal is to bring pleasure to God, not ourselves.

If you have ever said, “I didn’t get anything out of worship today,” you worshiped for the wrong reason. Worship isn’t for you. It’s for God. Of course, most “worship” services also include elements of fellowship, edification, and evangelism, and there are benefits to worship, but we don’t worship to please ourselves. Our motive is to bring glory and pleasure to our Creator.

There is a larger context to this quote and, of course, I agree that the purpose is to bring glory to God and I even agree with much of this article. However, the implication is almost that God needs our worship. I'm not saying that our worship doesn't please God, but I will say individually that I know mine doesn't always! I'm there because I need Him not because I have something that He benefits from. I can't imagine getting up Sunday morning thinking that I'm getting ready to go benefit God because of my worship. Bringing glory to God through worship is coming to Him in a joyful sorrow with a repentant heart. I'm not trying to fully unpack the differences between the two positions, rather I am trying to challenge the attitude of how we approach God. How many times to we weep like Peter after he denied Christ when we deny Him? How often would we weep?

Gene Edward Veith gives a short Theology of the Cross for Dummies post that gives a little something further to think about. And for a little more to think about there is a great chart at the Confessing Evangelical blog. In the comment thread of this post is the one sentence rhetorical question that sums up worship and the Theology of the Cross.

Who should be thankful at the end of a service: God, or us?


Just think about it...
Mark

For Algo: Surprised By Truth #15

Here's one for Surprised By Truth #15. Algo in the Prosapologian chat channel reminded of this interesting Roman Catholic conversion story from April 2007.

People swim the Tiber for all sorts of reasons. This time the swim began because free tapes weren't given out.

A little background: I had stopped by the Catholic Answers forums, and I was dialoging about the Apocrypha. Enjoy this interesting conversion story, that was posted in response to my comments on the Apocrypha:

Ah are you the same James Swan who works for James White?The Same James Swan who when would not offer me even one apolgetic tape at a reduced price when I was exploring Christianity when I was having financial difficulties? You thumbed your nose at my propistion at the time Even though I promised to pay you latter?

Well thanks to your greed and James White and the generosity of the Bible Christian Society who offered a lot of materails for nothing I am a catholic who happens to be debating your false claims again and again. Well things are beter now and I paid the Bible Christian Society latter, the same propisition you turned down. Well I know you and your organization for what you are greed and false witness. Thank God for John Martgnoni whose was far more interested in my salvation than making a buck. I am sure your deny this as you deny other truths but its a true story.

There are other protestants that are not hack apolgist like James WHite and WIlliam Webster and yourself. So why would we waste our money on your biased observations? There are more objective protestant sources to go to. ANd besides you were very rude and crude to a a spritual seeker when he was a little light in the wallet.

It seems you were only interested in sharing your faith when it didn't cost you anything? Again you could not spare one tape?

And your post of your debates here in catholic answers that are taken out of context and selectively without our full responses and explanations are another chance of cheap shot tactics. I challenge all seekers to do what I did ask for tapes from the Bible Christian Society for virtually nothing and study what John has to say.

My response:

For the first time since I've been on the boards, I came very close to using the alert feature and reporting Wisdom's last post. Perhaps though, we can avoid such silliness.

I contribute articles for James White's aomin.blog, but I am not employed by Dr. White. I'm not sure who you are confusing me with.

To my knowledge, I have never spoken to you before, unless it was here via these Catholic Answers discussion boards (which I have visited off and on for a few years). I can assure you, I have nothing to do with selling tapes, books, or whatever. I live hundreds of miles away from Alpha and Omega Ministries. I would need a plane to get there and answer the phone.

That being said, much of the same material found in either Dr. White's books or tapes can be found for free on his website.

I find it hard to fathom that discount tapes or books are a factor in conversion, but I guess it's possible. The Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons often give out free material, and people do convert to these cults. I would much rather study the Bible, the very word of God, and follow it, rather than tapes, books, or materials put out by a particular organization.

Simply because discount tapes are not provided does not mean a particular organization is comprised of "hack apologists". Dr. White and William Webster are Godly men who do very good work. On the other hand, I would be careful placing your faith in any fallible human or apologist. If I were you, I'd simply study the Bible and history, and evaluate all arguments and facts put forth by everybody. This way, we could actually rationally discuss Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo.

Regards,James SwanBeggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

The counter-response:

You seem to be overly familiar with alpha and omega ministries and yes your entier diatribe here is from the James White playbook its as if I am speaking to James White assistant at Alpha and Omega Ministires. The infalliability of of WIlliam Webster and James White are your usual trump card along with posting info on your blog. Sorry if this awful coincidence is just that but somehow I feel like this has all been done before or is it you guys seem to be all clones in your anti-catholic tactics. Look if its not you apologize but the expereince was actual and your responses are overly familiar.. This line that James White and WIlliam Webster are godly men and that my motive was suspect because they personally felt books and tapes were meaningless in converstions but on the other hand sold them to convert others is another tactic used by Alpha and Omega's assistance. Man if your not working for them you should as they use the exact same mantras. Of course the fact you used many of the same apologetic materials as Aplah and Omega is another suscipion. Oh well tell your twin in bizarro land that he has an imposter.

Wycliffe's Response to Church Authority

I picked up Great Voices of the Reformation from the library and was reading Wycliffe’s tract entitled AntiChrist’s Labour to Destroy Holy Writ. I was amused by the opening paragraph:

"As our Lord Jesus Christ ordained by the writing of the four evangelists, to make his gospel surely known, and maintained against heretics, and men out of the faith; so the devil, even Satan, devises by antichrist and his worldly false clerks, to destroy holy writ and Christian men's belief, by four accursed ways or false reasons. 1. The church is of more authority, and more to be believed than any gospel. 2. That Augustine said he would not believe the gospel if the church had not taught him so. 3. That no man alive knows which is the gospel, but by the approving of the church. 4. If men say that they believe this is the gospel of Matthew or John, they ask, Why believest thou that this is the gospel? as though they would say, There is no cause but that the church confirmeth and teacheth it."

I could not find an actual date for this writing, but since Wycliffe died in 1384 we can know it was written before that date. What I found so amusing was that even back in the late 1300s (prior to the Reformation), the same arguments for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church were being used. Coincidently, James posted about the same arguments in Luther’s time (just hours after I read Wycliffe’s tract), so I thought I would add Wycliffe’s response to #2 also:

"…They bear upon Augustine that he saith thus; That he would not believe the gospel unless the church said it. True men being answered thus, suppose that Augustine said this word. But he said to this intent, That unless Christ, head of holy church and saints in heaven, and the apostles of Christ that are holy church, said and approved this gospel, he would not believe thereto. And this understanding is full true, and reasonable, and according to the words of Augustine; but they understand them, that unless the multitude of accursed worldly clerks approve this for the gospel, Augustine would not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ; and since Augustine was, and is, so great a doctor of holy church, no man should believe the gospel, unless the church of these prelates confirm that this is the gospel of Christ; and unless the multitude of antichrist's clerks approve the gospel or truth of holy writ, no man should hold the gospel, or any command of God, or maintain any truth against antichrist, and his worldly prelates. But what heresy might sooner destroy Christian man's belief? and God forbid that Augustine were in perilous heresy, or any Christian man, therefore it is [lies] to slander St. Augustine with this accursed error, to colour their own false understanding and heresy by this holy doctor."

I just wanted to post a few words on the blog and my schedule.

First, a very big thanks to Carrie, Alan, and John Mark for their great contributions. I am currently taking a class (on top of my already hectic schedule), so their help has kept this blog going. I'm really enjoying having others posting along with me. This was actually something I've intended to do for quite some time, and I'm thankful for God's timing in bringing these people over here. I am still waiting for RAY AVILES to come on board. Ray is a long time cyber-friend, I've extended the invite, but he has a busy schedule also. I will continue to pester him until I get my way. He can even post in Spanish if he wants to.

Secondly, I must offer my apologies for those of you wishing to engage me in some of my recent posts. I just don't have the time. One particular person wondered why I wasn't simply quoting Augustine, but rather I quoted Luther quoting Augustine. He missed the point, which was to show that Protestants have engaged the pop-Catholic-apologetics quotes already. That being said, I've actually thought about not allowing comments on the posts I put up until I have time to defend or explain something I've written. I think though I'll leave my com-box open, and those of you wishing to comment should take this opportunity to speak your mind knowing you will get little back from me (in other words, declare yourselves "victors" and enjoy your triumph).

Third, I've seen that the blog has been attracting more than a few Roman Catholics, and some are complaining about how poorly they are being treated, while at the same time acting less than respectfully. Carrie, Alan, and John Mark are free to delete whichever comments they want to. Also, I will delete comments if any of my friends come by and are either insulted or offended.

If you are Roman Catholic (or Orthodox, Mormon, or adhere to some form of sola ecclesia), you are welcome to post your comments and defend your beliefs.

Apology to S&S

My apologies to Saint and Sinner for likely alerting DA to his series on DA’s book by my post here. I had no idea this would get DA so fired up that he would not only write about S&S in a new post, but move on to a whole diatribe against James White who has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

S&S has only written an introduction to his series and already the backlash begins. I’ll admit, I don’t think I have ever read through an entire DA post because they get so long, but I hope S&S can get through a few posts without being barraged by DA and others with what mostly amounts to off-topic rants. I would suggest that Catholics who would like to interact with S&S's posts actually come up with exegetical arguments without using the word "anti-Catholic" (I counted 9 uses of that term in DA's post).

Again S&S, I am looking forward to your series!