Was (or is) the Reformation Necessary? An examination of Protestantism’s doctrinal Pillars: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide -- 6

Interlude--Part 4

This post is in direct reply to the last one about Universalism. Jacob's words are black, my old words are maroon, and everything else is same as always...


It's important that you know for yourself everything that Gregory said, as I am not going to repeat every word of his, but I don't want to mis-quote him either. So please by all means everyone keep us both accountable.

I appreciate the thought. Now were sort of getting down to brass tacks.

Gregory, regarding your response to part 4, I believe that this is very much on the topic of Sola Scriptura. Though I admit in a abstract way. Simply because If I can show contradictions between scripture and Roman Catholic doctrine/tradition, then one of the two has to be wrong.

It is, to an extent. But I accused you of being off topic because it isn't specifically proving the thesis:

...The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a) that Sola Scriptura is actually taught in the Bible, b) why the Church somehow missed this teaching for nearly 1500 years, if indeed it is so clear in the Bible, and c) that it is in fact a workable theory in the promotion of Christian truth and unity, despite the glaring evidences to the contrary."

Since that is technically the topic of Sola Scriptura that was agreed upon way back in the first post, anything that doesn't further a proof of it is at best tangental. Attacking my beliefs don't actually support yours. They might, at best, demonstrate that a reformation was or is still necessary, but it does not prove that The Protestant Reformation is the reformation that is possibly necessary. The only way to do that is to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are valid doctrines. So far we've discussed only Sola Scriptura, and you need to demonstrate the three points in the thesis before anyone can satisfactorily hold to such a doctrine.

Thus, straightaway we find that attacking Catholic Tradition will not prove Sola Scriptura. That is why I say you are off topic.

And seeing as how the scripture came first

First in what sense? Scripture is itself a product of Sacred Tradition, in the sense that it was the Sacred Tradition of Conciliar Ecumenical Councils that determined what, in fact, was Scripture! You seem to miss or ignore that point: The Bible is a product of the Church

and years and years of RC tradition have been built on top of them, I believe it would point towards the tradition being faulty and not the scripture.

Yet this is not the historical reality of it, at all. Scripture and Tradition developed simultaneously (much like faith and works) and if not for Tradition, we would not know what Scripture was! Since we believe (because of the infallible ruling of the Councils) that the 73 books of the Bible are in fact God's Word, yes, it is, in your estimation, more likely that the Bible (which we both agree on) is right and the Traditions (which we disagree on many) are wrong--but then, the question is less "Is the Bible right or true?" as "Is my interpretation of the Bible right or true?" On the one hand, we both take the Bible as an authority on our faith. On the other, your interpretation of it contradicts Catholic Tradition while mine does not. It all comes right back to the issue of whose interpretation is correct and why.

After all the claim is that everything the RCC teaches is contained in scripture in "seed form." So if contradiction appears between tradition and scripture it's the tradition that is in the wrong.

Yes, if it can be proven that the interpretation of Scripture is correct, and still contradicts Tradition, then indeed, the Tradition is wrong. So then instead of quoting Scripture at me, you would need to rather demonstrate why you have more authority to interpret that Scripture correctly than the Magesterium.

"Your part 4 would have been a lot better put if you had asked how we reconcile those passages of the Catechism with the plain teaching of Scripture rather than just telling us what we supposedly believe and then labeling it a false Gospel."

First of all let me say you are right that I should give you an opportunity to reconcile your beliefs with scripture. I'm guilty of not being friendly, and I apologize. I have a tendency to get over-zealous.

As is demonstrated by my reply, I do to. All is forgiven. I appreciate the apology :)

That said, now that you have given your defense, I think your defense did nothing but back up my claim. Which simply put was that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is possible to be saved apart from knowing the name of Jesus or ever hearing His gospel. And not only that but that a person can be justified through the works of the law.

I would say that we are all justified by the works of the Law. The only question is, "Who is doing the works?" Only Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Law, and when we place our faith in Him, He washes away our sins and gives us the grace to live in Him. He paid the penalty against us.

Now the hypothetical question is, what if a person never sinned but kept the Law perfectly? He would not need Jesus to justify him. Of course, because of Adam and Eve, we know that the sin nature inside of us, devoid of grace, cannot keep the Law perfectly, so really, that's a moot point.

However, by your description of who can be saved and how, you would condemn the Old Testament faithful to Hell as well. Since we know that's not the case, we see that there is an exception (namely, that their faith looking forward was salvific through the sacrifice of Calvary which extended backwards as well as forwards).

Romans 2:12ff: "All those who have sinned without the Law will perish without the Law; and those under the Law who have sinned will be judged by the Law. For the ones that God will justify are not those who have heard the Law but those who have kept the Law. So, when gentiles, not having the Law, still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands, then, even though they have no Law, they are a law for themselves. They can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness; since they are aware of various considerations, some of which accuse them, while others provide them with a defense...On the day when, according to the gospel that I preach, God, through Jesus Christ, judges all human secrets."

Ok, I of course agree with the scripture. Now, your interpretation.....

"What is this saying? That God's Law is on the hearts of every man, and that as a man is able, as he follows that law in his conscience, he is following God whether he knows it or not. Since, as Romans 2 clearly states, God judges us by our deeds, there is the possibility that such a man, who, through no fault of his own, does not know the fullness of the Gospel. However, if such a man is saved, it is still due to the unmerited life of Grace at work in him through Jesus Christ.This is what the Catechism is saying. But even the Catechism isn't declaring it to be a sure thing, but says that "those too may achieve eternal salvation" [emphasis mine]. The only sure way is through Christ Jesus, and that is why evangelisation is so crucial--in fact, the Bible says and the Catechism echoes, that evangelisation is itself necessary for salvation!"

Starting with the last thing you said in the above paragraph, I'll be honest and just say I don't follow what you mean. Are you saying that evangelism is something a Christian needs to do for their own salvation or are you saying that it is necessary to be evangelized to become a Christian? Maybe if you explain this I'll understand better what you mean. If it's the latter, then this sounds like it's in stark contrast to what you've just said right before that. If it's the first, then that's a work and I would say it's not necessary for salvation.

What I said, I had thought was pretty clear. If we will not spread the Gospel, we will not be saved. Jesus Himself said that if we fail to acknowledge Him before men (evangelisation), He will not acknowledge us before the Father (justification). Doesn't get much clearer than that! Philippians 2:12-16:

So, my dear friends, you have always been obedient; your obedience must not be limited to times when I am present. Now that I am absent it mst be more in evidence, so work out your salvation in fear and trembling. It is God who, for His own generous purpose, gives you the intention and the powers to act. Let your behaviour be free of murmuring and complaining so that you remain faultless and pure, 'unspoilt children of God' surrounded by 'a deceitful and underhand brood,' shining out among them like bright stars in the world, proffering to it the Word of life. Then I shall have reason to be proud on the Day of Christ, for it will not be for nothing that I have run the race and toiled so hard.

What is Paul saying? He tells us first that we must work out our own salvation! But, he says, that working out comes only by the grace of God! All our works are nothing if they are not energised by God's Grace, but through God's Grace, He gives us the ability to work righteousness for Him! Now, if He gives us that grace, and we fail to work said righteousness, then we are forfeiting our salvation (Revelation 3:3-5). Back to the text: Paul continues to describe the behaviour of those who are working out their salvation--free of murmuring and complaining, faultless and pure, and "proffering to [the world] the Word of life." Earlier in the epistle, Paul's chief joy is that the Church has been doing just that--helping him to spread the Gospel!

Finally, if Christ has given us the Great Commission, and we do not obey it, how can we expect to be saved? He said, "You are My disciples if you do what I command." Anything further I'll save for an actual discussion of Sola Fide.

Because it seems to me what you have just said is that even if a person has never heard of Christ or His gospel, but they obey the law that is written on their heart, though it's a slim chance, it's possible they might be saved.

This is a point of division even among Protestants, so we must not try to make it a "Catholic-Protestant" issue! I looked up the phrase "Salvation haven't heard Gospel" on Yahoo. I looked at the first two articles. The first was a well-written and biblically (with help from RC Sproul) defended treatise giving the answer that no, those who have not heard the Gospel are not saved (Your position). The very next article (very Protestant indeed!) gave the opposite answer (with a little help from Don Richardson (and his book "Eternity In Their Hearts") after thorough biblical reasoning, as well (My position).

Thus it is plain to see that the issue is not simply Protestant-Catholic, and therefore can't really enter into this debate at all, in the long run--because if you succeeded in proving your position, you would still have to exclude the vast majority of Christian denominations as teaching a "false Gospel." Yet this should not surprise me, because time and time again you have shown yourself willing to reject all but the Calvinist point of view (and a very narrow version of that, since Calvin himself believed in infant baptism, such Marian doctrines as her perpetual virginity, and opposed things like birth control--all of which you disagree on). So in the end, I'm not sure which denominational version of Christianity you would accept outside of the SBC--which you admitted that you aligned yourself with because it taught what you believe.

(For the record, the two sites were The Necessity of Christ as the Conscious Focus of all Saving Faith--your position; and What happens to people who have never heard the gospel?--My position.)

"On the one hand we believe that God is merciful and compassionate, and that He doesn't want to condemn."

I fully agree with this. And it's in this compassion (I think you'll agree) that He sent Jesus into the world so that the world might be saved. (John 3:17)

Absolutely.

"On the other, we know that He is holy and just and must condemn.

Right. (Romans 1:18)

But the harmony is found in Jesus. But where is justice in condemning someone who doesn't know about Jesus? There is none,

Actually there is plenty. Romans 3:10-12;

"as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

And Romans 1:28-32;

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

We all have rejected God. We all deserve Hell. If we got what we deserve and God didn't die in our place we would all die and go to Hell. And because we rebel in our sin against God, He would be just to send us there. Praise the Lord that He loved us enough to make a way for us, but He sure didn't have to.

The question, hypothetically, was not whether all men or women who had not heard the Gospel were saved regardless of their lives, but whether any man or woman who had not heard the Gospel, but did respond to the grace of Christ in whatever way that grace made itself known to them could then be saved? Therefore the Scriptural indictments against actual sins do not apply to a hypothetical person. Moreover, quoting poetical hyperbole doesn't make a good case. But then, we have a different definition of "Total Depravity", too.

without the possibility, however remote, that even St. Paul describes in Romans, that they might seek for God anyway and live according to what knowledge He has given them! Paul says all men are without excuse. But if they are without excuse, then it cannot be possible that they are also without the grace of salvation!

Wrong. Romans 7:7-10;

"What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me."

Knowledge of the law reveals sin! That's the whole point of why Jesus had to come, because no one was capable of fulfilling the law, and it is indeed the law that condemns us and reveals our sin. There is absolutely no way to inherit salvation apart from faith in the name and gospel of Jesus Christ! That is why the great commission is so important.

But we are talking specifically of those who don't know the law! Paul himself, in the very text which you cited says, "I was once alive apart from the law"! Therefore, if one does not know the Law, they fall into that category! The Law about which Paul is talking here is not the law written on men's hearts by general revelation, but specifically the OT Law, specially revealed to the Jewish people! This is evident by the very fact that St. Paul quotes it!

However, unfortunately, the majority of people will not take even the "easy" version through Jesus!

I wouldn't call it the easy version.

That's why I put easy in ""s. It's a lot easier to get to heaven with Jesus than without Him!

It's tough to forsake yourself and take up your cross. But it is indeed the only version and only way to Heaven. Place your faith in Christ alone, deny yourself and walk the narrow road home.

I just wanted to point out that "deny[ing] yourself and walk[ing] the narrow road home" are "works."

How much less will those who have never heard of the guarantee of salvation from Him not meet even the remote exception? Yet the Bible is clear that just because the chance is remote, does not mean there is no chance!"

I couldn't disagree more. (Shocking I know) The Bible is clear that there is no exception to be made. There is no other chance. Salvation is by calling on the name of the Lord. And you can't call on the name of the Lord unless you've received the gospel to know what the name is. Romans 10:13-15;

For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"

Romans 3:26;

"It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

John 3:16;

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Romans 10:9;

"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Ephesians 1:13;

"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,"

And of course there is more in the scripture that backs up this point. It is necessary to know about Jesus, the Christ of God, who he is, what He has done, and why He did it, in order to be saved.

The law does not justify, it condemns. But as Paul says, the law is good. Without it we would not know our helpless estate.

But again, we are discussing those without the Law, but still with the grace of Christ--like those written about in different books on missions that I studied when I was working toward a Bachelor of Religious Studies in Missions as a Protestant. For example, the tribe that had a legend about a man who would come and bring them a book of how to be reconciled to God, because generations ago, a tribal chief had been revealed this in a dream. When the missionary finally showed up, they readily received the Gospel because of this--but the question is, what about those who died before the missionary arrived, yet hoped for his arrival? Are they condemned simply because they did not know Jesus' name? Or does His grace cover them as it covered the Old Testament saints who were saved through their faith in God and in His Christ, though their notion of Him was vague and incomplete?

Gregory, you have to concede that it's in the known name of Jesus and faith in Him and what He has done that brings upon salvation. Put aside the fact that we have different views about faith and works, the gospel must be known and understood for salvation to occur. If you haven't heard the message of the cross, there is no chance for salvation.

Later, Jacob wrote in the comments:

A lot has been said here, but the question still remains. Is it possible for someone to achieve salvation outside of hearing the gospel of Christ and responding in faith?

Put aside all our other differences for a moment on faith alone versus faith + works. Gregory made the statement regarding this issue:

"Yet the Bible is clear that just because the chance is remote, does not mean there is no chance!"

Gregory did I understand you right? Am I misinterpreting you? Or did you say that the possibility is, while remote, there for someone by works of the law to secure eternity with Christ?

Because if that's the case, that person has something to brag about.

I replied:

No, that is not what I said, nor is it what the Bible or the Church teaches.

To be as clear as I possibly can, let me attempt to explain.

Christ died for all people, of all times, in all places. But not all of these people in all times or in all places have had the opportunity to hear of Christ. For example, Old Testament Saints who very obviously did not have the fulness of the Gospel preached to them, babies who could not comprehend the Gospel if it was preached to them, and various though precious few others who through no fault of their own are currently out of reach for various reasons of having the Gospel preached to them.

We know, though, that the Old Testament Saints, while not perfectly fulfilling the Law, are nonetheless saved through their faith and hope in salvation and obedience to the law as much as they were able. Why? Because Christ's Sacrifice was retroactive, to speak from our point of view (but eternal, to speak from His).

Babies we honestly cannot be sure about, but we entrust them to God's mercy if they die unbaptised and to His grace if they die baptised--even though they could not respond in faith to the Gospel. Why? Because even though they are born in sin, they themselves have not committed sin through any fault of their own, and we can trust that because God wants them to be saved, that He can and will save them.

Now, that's two very plain exceptions of groups of people who are saved without placing their faith explicitly in the Gospel of Christ, that I assume we both agree on (if not, then there are issues at stake here that run miles deeper than I first supposed!).

In light of the fact that A) these two groups were not at fault for not placing their faith explicitly in Jesus, and B) that they are saved regardless of the fact that they did not (indeed, could not) place their faith consciously in Jesus Christ, but were judged and saved rather on what they had the ability to believe in, and how they responded to the grace they had been given, then why is it not just as logical that the third group, who meets the same qualifiers as the other two saved groups (namely that they do not place their trust in Jesus through no fault of their own and that they respond to whatever graces God has given to them), especially in light of the fact that Jesus died for them just as much as He died for us, and that God is not willing that any should perish, why is it obvious, biblical teaching that these people are ipso facto condemned because of something that they had no control over?!

Now note carefully what I am not saying:
I am not saying that this "loophole" is likely (indeed, in our day and age, it is almost impossible to not have faith in Jesus through no fault of your own, let alone respond to God's graces without knowing the Gospel).
I am not saying that these people are saved without Christ. In fact, I have tried to make it as explicit as possible that if these people are saved at all, it is only because of Christ that they could be!

I hope that is clear now.

Any teaching divergent to this, is indeed a false gospel. And if this is what the Roman Catholic Chruch teaches, this is part of "Why the reformation was and still is necessary."

IN HIM -JACOB

Actually, this isn't the case, because, as I demonstrated above, this isn't simply a Protestant-Catholic issue, but one that divides Protestants (indeed, even hard-core, conservative, Bible-believing Protestants). So before you turn this issue into one allowing you to write of Catholicism, you'd better be willing to write off all who don't agree with you.

Of course, the reverse of that is those that you write off will most likely write off your opinion or that of the SBC, and we'll get rather nowhere. Moreover, it is yet one more issue where Sola Scriptura has led to a multitude of competing and contradictory opinions, and spread more disunity.

If you're looking for a serious, intelligent post, read the bunch before this. I need to pull a Nate, a rant some serious anger out.

So yeah, serious post: not this one.

Okay, I'm really REALLY angry about some people I'm come into contact as of late. I told someone not to touch my coat, so what do they do? Go out of their way to touch it. And if I tell another little person, to be quiet, or stop making fun of someone, he does it again, and then tries to run away. I'm so sick of people who try to test me, and my anger. I am SO sick of it. I do it too sometimes, and I realize that it's annoying, so sorry to those who I've tested, but still, don't test me. I'm likely bigger than you. And if not, then I'm probably bigger than your spouse....watch it.

Okay, today Nate's girlfriend, who I am going to refrain from calling ... something profane ... managed to knock me over. Congratulations, that isn't an easy feat, but still.. REALLY mad. What was I supposed to do? Had Rick, Eric, Nate, or someone else like that, someone male had jumped at me, I would have either ripped them in half, or leveled them. But when a girl rhinoceroses at me, what the hell can I do, other then attempt to hold her up a little. I had my hands in my pocket too. Bah, nothing I could do but fall. Girls should not attack men. Ever. Joking with them usually ends up with me getting kicked, punched, or charged at. I can't fight back, and there's the chance for unearned humiliation. I freakin' HATE it...WhEn GiRlS aTtAcK!!! One day I'm going to accidentally kill one..then I'll go to jail. Stupid laws.

NOW MY SUEDE JACKET HAS MUD ON IT!! SEE WHY YOU SHOULDN'T TOUCH IT, OR ME?!?!

Bah, that made me mad.

Alright, another thing that has recently gotten to me. The constant use of sexism and racism in jokes. A lot of my friends have been doing that a lot lately. I have too, but I realize I shouldn't.

Recently, I heard this from a friend after video games: "You know what I just realized? I just plain hate black people." A joke of course.. but still.. This is terrible. I do similar things, and shall stop. But seriously, everyone, we're just freakin' terrible and should STOP.

Bah. I'm angry.

And awesome.

~Dave~

Was (or is) the Reformation Necessary? An examination of Protestantism’s doctrinal Pillars: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide -- 5

Interlude--Part 3

Here is the third interlude debate, caused by Jacob's recent travelling. Before he had left, he responded briefly to a comment I had made in my replies to him. So rather than give and exhaustive reply to me, he selected a portion and replied to it at length. I replied to him, and am now reproducing it here. Jacob's words are in black. My former words will be in maroon. My replies to his post will be in blue.

I sound rather harsh in my replies, but that was because even before Jacob posted this, I had been getting progressively more upset with his misrepresentation of Catholicism. In this instalment he argues that we teach "universalism", or "everyone will be saved", or at least some variation of that. However, the Catholic Church is very sure about Hell, and the possibility that men will end up there. In effect, Jacob takes our document (The Catechism of the Catholic Church) and interprets it to say exactly the opposite of what we believe. If he can do that with our Catechism, it doesn't inspire me with much faith in how he interprets other literary documents, like, oh, say, The Bible!

Reformation Debate: Part 4

My but how you do get off topic!

I don't have time to go through and answer every point of Gregory's reply to Part 2, but before I leave and wont have time to post again until possibly late next week, I wan to respond to at least one point he made. Gregory said:

"Catholic doctrine never contradicts Scripture, although some Catholic doctrines are not explicitly taught in Scripture. But, since Catholicism is not bound by Sola Scriptura, this is not a problem for us. That said, however, we do believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture--a) that it has everything we absolutely need to know for salvation, and b) that all Catholic doctrine is at least implicitly taught in Scripture."

All that is in green [I'm leaving it black, but blockquoting it. I'll also put the emphases back in from the original CCC] is taken directly from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Gregory once said that he intends to prove that "The Roman Catholic Church places salvation squarely on the nail pierced hands of Jesus Christ." Here we see straight from the RCC that they accept Muslims as included in the plan of salvation, because they profess to hold to the faith of Abraham. My response to that is, so what!

Jacob, Jacob, Jacob. It sure would be nice if you would quote our documents in context and with understanding.

The context of Paragraph 841 is "The Church's relationship with Non-Christians" which begins at paragraph 839, with a discussion of the Jews. After one small paragraph on the Muslims, it goes on to discuss members of non-monotheistic religions.

It follows a natural progression, discussing how God's salvation is for the whole world, by beginning the discussion with Christians (prior to p. 839), then going to Judaism, the religion that is closest to us, and out of which Christianity was birthed. But it does not say that the Jews, who are included in God's plan of Salvation are therefore saved. Next the Catechism progresses to the Muslims, because they are the religion after Judaism that is closest to Christianity, because of their belief in one God. But again, simply being included in God's plan of salvation does not mean that they are, in fact, automatically saved! It simply means that they are not automatically damned, either (as was believed in the Middle Ages. Paragraph 841 is more a statement of God's overwhelming mercy and universal Grace, even to historic Christianity's greatest non-Christian enemy, not a statement on the salvation of individual Muslims). It simply is saying that, yes, Jesus died for Muslims, too.

In fact, beginning at paragraph 846, to conclude and concretise the discussion of other religious groups, in the section entitled "Outside the Church there is no salvation," the Catechism states,

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body. [Emphasis mine]

Paragraph 846 continues with a quotation I'm sure you'll love, but has more bearing on your discussion with Jon.

The Jews did that and they still had to hear the gospel and repent! (Luke 3:8)

Amazing! That's what it indicates in paragraphs 839-40!

The Muslims deny the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, death on the cross and resurrection!!!

Uhm, actually, now you're misrepresenting Islam as well as Catholicism! Muslims believe very firmly in Jesus' Virgin Birth! (Yeah, you're right about the other three, but seriously, get your facts straight. At least talk to a Muslim and read the Qu'ran before you spout off like this--and perhaps pay me the same courtesy!)

Unless they hear the gospel and repent, they are not a part of the plan of salvation.

Amen! The Catechism is not denying this! In fact, it affirms it in Paragraph 846 (particularly in the citation that I omitted. But hey, you've got a Catechism!)

[Edit: I read Jacob's sentence wrong the first time I replied. Allow me to adjust that. We are all a part of God's plan for salvation! Christ died for the whole world! But it is our choice to accept or to reject Him! Saying someone is not part of the plan of salvation is tantamount to saying Jesus did not die for that person, thus effectively saying they can never and will never be saved. In essense, God created them just to throw them into Hell! Had Jacob said what I had thought I had read, namely: "Unless they hear the gospel and repent, they are not saved," then my response above is valid.]

Romans 10:8-15,

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"

[I edited out the verse numbers interspersed in the text because they drive me nuts. They weren't part of the original, but were the artificial construct of mediaeval monks, anyway ;)]

Outside the gospel of Christ there is no Salvation.

Absolutely not. And look at what that text says--without the preaching of the Gospel there is no Salvation. Who preaches the Gospel? The Church! Therefore, without the Church there is no Salvation! Should we drive in some more circles here? Oh, oh, wait! You just did:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

What a complete contradiction of scripture.

Uh, yeah, you know that book you just quoted at me? Did you read chapter 2?

Romans 2:12ff: "All those who have sinned without the Law will perish without the Law; and those under the Law who have sinned will be judged by the Law. For the ones that God will justify are not those who have heard the Law but those who have kept the Law. So, when gentiles, not having the Law, still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands, then, even though they have no Law, they are a law for themselves. They can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness; since they are aware of various considerations, some of which accuse them, while others provide them with a defence...on the day when, according to the gospel that I preach, God, through Jesus Christ, judges all human secrets."

What is this saying? That God's Law is on the hearts of every man, and that as a man is able, as he follows that law in his conscience, he is following God whether he knows it or not. Since, as Romans 2 clearly states, God judges us by our deeds, there is the possibility that such a man, who, through no fault of his own, does not know the fullness of the Gospel. However, if such a man is saved, it is still due to the unmerited life of Grace at work in him through Jesus Christ.

This is what the Catechism is saying. But even the Catechism isn't declaring it to be a sure thing, but says that "those too may acheive eternal salvation" [emphasis mine]. The only sure way is through Christ Jesus, and that is why evangelisation is so crucial--in fact, the Bible says and the Catechism echoes, that evangelisation is itself necessary for salvation!

So the sacraments are necessary for salvation, but only if you've heard about them. Is that right?

Not really, no. The Sacraments are the normative vehicles for God's grace, and are therefore necessary in normal circumstances, and especially for the believer. But God, though He gave us the Sacraments, is not bound by the Sacraments. The CCC says that too (# 1257).

Well then we would probably do well to keep letting people believe in whatever God they believe in because if we tell them the truth they might reject it.

This is a foolish statement because
a)Jesus clearly commands the opposite of us, telling us to go out and preach to all people;
b) a person's complete lack of hearing about Jesus only opens the remote possibility that they will be saved, depending on the life they live and the Grace of God;
and c) in today's world there are exceedingly few people who could meet that qualification, even if they don't believe in Christianity!

And if they've heard it and rejected it they are condemned, but if they haven't heard it and believe in something higher or better then themselves it ok.

No, again, it is only a possibility based solely on our faith in the abundant knowledge, mercy, justice, and compassion of our God to save.

So you can never have heard about Jesus Christ or His good news and/or deny that Jesus is God and call him simply another prophet like Moses, and yet still be a part of God's plan for eternal salvation.

Of course, because again, a) to be part of God's saving plan does not mean that you are saved, only simply that He wants you to be saved, and b) He wants everyone to be saved! Sometimes you really make me wonder if you can read. Sorry, but your caricatures of my faith are really annoying!

That seems like a pretty broad and wide open road.

Only to you!

Just about everyone will make it on that road. But Jesus says in Matthew 7:13-14,

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

If you misinterpret our teaching, no wonder you end up with false conclusions about it!

How could one billion + Roman Catholics be wrong? "the gate is wide and the way is easy."

We aren't saying that. You are, but you're putting those false words into our mouths! On the one hand we believe that God is merciful and compassionate, and that He doesn't want to condemn. On the other, we know that He is holy and just and must condemn. But the harmony is found in Jesus. But where is justice in condemning someone who doesn't know about Jesus? There is none, without the possibility, however remote, that even St. Paul describes in Romans, that they might seek for God anyway and live according to what knowledge He has given them! Paul says all men are without excuse. But if they are without excuse, then it cannot be possible that they are also without the grace of salvation! However, unfortunately, the majority of people will not take even the "easy" version through Jesus! How much less will those who have never heard of the guarantee of salvation from Him not meet even the remote exception? Yet the Bible is clear that just because the chance is remote, does not mean there is no chance!

It's sad but true that way more people are on their way to Hell than Heaven.

Indeed it is. That is why my heart is so concerned with missions.

But false gospels like that of the Roman Catholic Church continue to point people towards the broad road.

The only false Gospel being discussed here is your caricature of our faith. If you want to actually deal with what the Catholic Church says, instead of misinterpreting it and misrepresenting it, I'd be a whole lot happier!

IN HIM -JACOB

To be "in Him", doesn't that have certain moral obligations, such as fairness and honesty, even when dealing with opinions that you might disagree with? Jesus had some harsh things to say about the Pharisees, but He never lied about them! Think about that.

Your part 4 would have been a lot better put if you had asked how we reconcile those passages of the Catechism with the plain teaching of Scripture rather than just telling us what we supposedly believe and then labelling it a false Gospel.

God bless
Gregory

Again, part of me wants to apologise for the harshness of my words. But the fact of the matter is that Jacob has sorely misrepresented our Faith, and then called it a "False Gospel"! If it was the first time, I'd call him on it and let it go. But he insists on doing this, and frankly it gets frustrating.

The problem is greater than Jacob, though, since this is the view of Catholics that many people have--especially Protestants. It was the view of Catholicism that I once held. Because of that, I know his arguments, and have dealt with them in my own journey. Also because of that, I want to expose the error of thinking that causes these caricatures and better demonstrate what the Church actually does teach!

Call me an eternal optimist, but I fully agree with the words of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who once remarked that "Not 100 people in America hate the Catholic Church. But millions hate what they falsely suppose to be the Catholic Church."

Jacob himself has said that he hates the Catholic Church, but by his replies it is evident that he doesn't actually know what it is.

That is why, I think, this debate is so important.
God bless.

Was (or is) the Reformation Necessary? An examination of Protestantism’s doctrinal Pillars: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide -- 4

Interlude--Part 2

This Interludal debate is actually between David "Mark 1:17" who writes the blog Get Out of the Boat and is a Calvinistic Protestant like Jacob. He and I have debated before, both here and at Grace for the Wayward Heart. At Jacob's blog, in the topic called "Reformation Day", he contributed to the debate by trying to take a step back and examine our basic presuppositions about Scripture and the Church, in order to clear things up. He did an admirable job explaining both sides (only a few corrections were needed) and I really enjoyed replying. His words will be in black, and mine, as usual, in the default blue. Any editorial comments I make on my own words will be in [square brackets]. These are comments that do not appear in my original post on Jacob's blog.

Mark 1:17 said...
Guys,
There is a fundamental difference in Interpretation of Scripture and this is why the two sides wont agree:

I guess you could sum it up that way. The major difference so far is over the very question, "Who has the ability to interpret Scripture properly?" Catholics say "the Church" in order to preserve unity of doctrine. Protestants say "everyone" in order to preserve purity of doctrine. However, the Protestant rule has led to thousands upon thousands of disagreements that have spawned ever-increasing denominational divisions, each with their own novel interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand, the Catholic Church has maintained not only doctrinal unity but also doctrinal purity, believing the same thing for 2000 years. So from a purely historical-logical perspective, I've decided to believe the Catholic method.

Please correct me if I am wrong on your standpoints.

Don't worry, if you are, I'll be sure to! :D

Based off of this Scripture Matthew 16:13-20

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."

Gregory,
You believe that Jesus was telling Peter that he (Peter) was the "rock" and "foundation" of His church on earth. And that Christ gave the power to bind and loose to Peter. And that Peter has passed that power on down the line from Pope to Pope.

Based on that text among others. From that text I get up to your last sentence. More is needed to get to actually passing that authority on.

Jacob,
You believe that Jesus was declaring Peter's confession of Him (Jesus) as the Christ as the "rock" and "foundation" of the church on earth. And that Christ gave the power to bind and loose to His disciples (those who followed Christ).

No comment really, since this isn't my belief anymore. But I do have one question--in the Protestant schema, what is referred to by the power to bind and loose?

Gregory,
You know that I believe the latter of these two interpretations. But I do have some questions and concerns about the first.

Fire away! You've done a fair job presenting things so far!

1. You believe that the Pope and Cardinals (?Majestirium?)

Actually, it's the Pope and the Bishops (the Pope himself is the Bishop of Rome), not the Cardinals. Cardinal is actually an honourary title, usually, but not necessarily, given to bishops. All bishops are part of the Magesterium, but not all Cardinals are. The Cardinals' chief role is to elect a new Pope upon the death of the old.

are the only people who are infallible in the interpretation of Scripture.

Actually, infallibility only pertains to doctrinal pronouncements on faith and morals. Usually, those do indeed reflect and teach a particular interpretation of Scripture, but don't go thinking that the Bible is 100% defined as interpreted in X way. Only something like 7 specific passages of Scripture have been authoritatively interpreted--and even that means that "X is the primary, indisputable meaning. Other meanings can be got, so long as they do not contradict X". As such (Matt 16 being just such a passage) we must believe that Peter is the Rock, but that does not exclude the teaching that Jesus is the rock, or that Peter's confession is the rock, so long as the other two interpretations are not presented in a contradictory fashion to Peter's "rock-ness". In fact, the Catholic Catechism refers to all three interpretations at various times.

More, the Pope is infallible on issues of faith and morals only when he is specifically defining a doctrine according to his official status as Bishop of Rome--or, as the theologians say, when he is speaking "ex cathedra" which means, "from the chair [of Peter]."

The rest of the Bishops, however, are only infallible when they make a declaration on faith and morals as a college, or speaking together, for instance at an Ecumenical Council (like Nicea, which gave us the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity, or Carthage, which gave us the New Testament Canon).

But they declared themselves as such (I don't remember when or at which councel, but I want to say Trent...unsure though).

Vatican 1 was when the doctrine of Infallibility was officially defined, in 1870. However, for a doctrine to be defined infallibly by the Church, it had to have been believed from antiquity (and more or less meet the other of the 4 qualities that Jon mentioned in the post before yours [Those were A-Orthodoxy, B-Holiness, C-Church Approval, and D-Antiquity]). The doctrines are not just pulled out of a hat, and the bishops say, "That sounds good!" It is the final reflection on a historical belief of the Church, which has often just been taken for granted, but at the present, a controversy over it has arisen and so a definitive pronouncement must be made. We see this at the Council of Trent. Historic Christianity has always accepted the Deutero-Canonical books of the Old Testament (what Protestants call the Apocrypha) as Scripture, and that was never challenged until Martin Luther rejected them in the 16th Century. Because of this the Catholic Church defined at the Council of Trent that the Deutero-Canonical books are indeed Scriptural. A misunderstanding of this has led many Protestants to claim that we "added" those books at that time, but the fact is, they had always been there and always been understood as Scripture. It was at that time that they were officially declared so.

It works that way with every Catholic doctrine, including Infallibility. It had been understood in the past, but the exact meaning and extent of it was carefully and precisely laid out so that there would be no misunderstanding of it, in 1870, at the first Vatican Council.

My concern here is that these few men have taken an authority that is not theres to take.

We believe that that authority flows out of Jesus' promises and commands that the Gates of Hell would never overcome the Church (meaning that It would never abandon the true faith) and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (the command, or instruction, being to bind and loose, and to preach that truth to the world). When the Church is called "The Pillar and Foundation of the Truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15, this is only possible if infallibility is true of the Church, and thus, St. Paul is attributing that quality to her in the 1st century!

The only one who is infallible is God!

You believe the Bible to be infallible, yes? Why? I'll wager it is because it is God's Word, and so He caused it to be infallible, correct? Yet God chose weak and sinful humans to write His Word. Those people could have fouled it up pretty good, had God not kept them from so doing.

We extend that understanding to the Church by analogy: God wanted His Church to preach His Salvation to the world, but the Church is full of sinful people who could foul that up pretty badly. We believe that God will not allow this based on His Promises in Scripture, and so keeps the Church from officially teaching error. If He could do it with the Bible, on what grounds do you object to Him doing it in His Church, which is, in fact, His Body?

Infallibility is not something that the Church has, just because, as if it is just something that belongs to her, putting her on level with God. Rather, infallibility is a Grace of the Holy Spirit, given to the Church to guide her into all truth so that she can spread that truth to the nations. Thus, the infallibility of the Church is a gift of God, flowing out from His Infallibility into His Body to complete His Mission.

And I believe that God dwells within each of His people and that when His people are in a right relationship with Him, He leads them into All Truth!

This is true, but He does it in a way that is never and can never be divorced from His Church. When an individual says, "The Spirit will guide me into all truth, so I don't need the Church to tell me how to interpret my Bible," not only is that just prideful, but it is demonstrably false. We see that when we look at two very devout Christian people reading Scripture and coming to two incredibly different understandings of it. One says, "I have free will!" and becomes a Methodist. The other says "God predestines everything!" and becomes a Christian Reformed. One says, "The Eucharist is Jesus Himself, and is necessary for salvation!" and becomes a Lutheran. Another says "It is only a symbol, a nice way to remember Jesus' sacrifice. We'll celebrate it, at His command, once a quarter," and goes to a Presbyterian church.

So you see, many contradictory views come to light (I could multiply examples, especially if I went into the end times!) from the view that each of us is equipped to interpret Scripture properly for ourselves, because "The Spirit will guide me into all truth." And in my mind it is the downfall of Sola Scriptura.

Also, basing the position of the Pope off of this passage I also believe is wrong because of the whole differences in the Greek forms of "rock" (I know that you and Loren hashed through that, but I see Loren's points as more vallid than those that you brought up. "rock" as in pebble for Peter and "rock" as in bedrock for foundation.

I respectfully disagree with you, and think Loren didn't make his case at all (no offence to him; he was a great opponent and is a great guy). The difference, as I said, was simply a matter of gender, and that played out in the fact that everywhere else in Scripture that referred to a small stone, "Lithos" was used, not "Petros". To the Sacred Authors' minds, "lithos" was the word to use, every time. Why change it for this time? By that logic, Peter's name would be Lither, or something. But Petra is a feminine word in the Greek, and not suitable to call a man, and so the Gospel writer, Matthew, changed it to Petros, giving it the masculine ending. Loren tried to defeat this argument by suggesting alternate masculine endings, but in so doing displayed his own lack of Greek knowledge, because the other endings were either plural or possessive (the equivalent to 's in English). So I submit that Loren did not make his case well at all. But then again, we come to the issue of how do we know who was right? Which teacher do we listen to? The one who "makes a better case" or the one with authority to decide? And round and round we go.

If nothing else, I hope it's food for thought.
[One can read the entire debate here, and determine for himself who made the better arguments, if he is interested.]

The foundation for the Church must be Christ

Absolutely it is!

and Christ alone. (and I know you will [I think he neant dis]agree with that, but please read on)

Of course I will, since Scripture itself disagrees with you. (Ephesians 2:20: "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." This is the same author who said in 1 Cor 3:11 that there is no other foundation than Jesus Christ. So either Paul contradicts himself, which we accept on faith is impossible, or we interpret 1 Cor 3:11 in light of Ephesians 2:20, seeing that the foundation of truth is the Church [1 Tim 3:15] built on the Apostles and Prophets, and that Jesus Christ is the most essential, without-Him-there's-nothing part of that foundation. But there is no contradiction.)

2. Why would Christ being the Head of the Church delegate His authority to a created being?

Because we are all human beings who are spiritually united to Him! Since He is not Himself physically present, someone must represent Him to a world that relies on the 5 physical senses to understand the world, even non-physical, Spiritual realities. That He has done so is evident in many places of Scripture, esp. John 20:22-23 and Matthew 28:18-20

His church is universal, consisting of those still on earth and those in heaven, and those who from our perspective have fallen asleep. I can't see God giving any of His authority to a lesser being.

A lesser being? God has raised us up higher than the angels, and in fact has made us brothers and sisters of Christ Jesus! In fact, as Jon pointed out in one thread here, Paul says in Galatians that we ourselves are dead and only Christ remains! So we are not "lesser beings"! Yes, obviously we are not God Himself, but His Church is the Body of Christ--so intimately united with Him that Jesus could accuse St. Paul of persecuting not His followers, but He Himself before Paul's conversion. Is it any wonder, after that encounter, that Paul would be the one to coin the phrase, "Body of Christ"? He understood that not as a metaphor, but as Christ meant it on the road to Damascus!

(When Michael was confronted by Satan, even He [the head of the angels] deffered to God saying, "The LORD rebuke you.")

Yes, but we are higher than the angels (Psalm 8) especially since we are Christ's Body. [In fact, I would add, Christ Himself gave us the authority to cast out Satan, which ipso facto gives us greater authority than even the Captain of the Host of Heaven, St. Michael himself!]

So in short my concerns are:
1. That a few men have made themselves the only interpreters of Scripture and have used Scripture to bolster their position and make people think that they need these few men to interpret the Scripture for them, when God gives us His Spirit to guild and direct us. They have made themselves the foundation and not Christ.

A valid concern, if an alternative was viable. The Protestant Reformation, and the resulting division upon division, have demonstrated that individuals who think they can infallibly interpret Scripture were wrong! And if it is true that, from the provided biblical evidence, Christ Himself designated the Church to function in such a way, then these few men have not grasped after false power, but have been ordained to the greatest level of service in the Church! And that's precisely what it is: service! Their power is only power to keep people from error so they don't end up in Hell--not power to exalt the power weilder. The Bishops that I've met and talked to (like my own priest, before he was consecrated Bishop this past August) didn't want the job because of the responsibility and level of service--they do not seek it to gratify their lust for power! And those who would, are very rarely given the job, thank God!

2. In doing this these men have taken authority from Christ, which not even Michael was bold enough to do.

Again, this concern is false, since Christ Himself is the Authority by which they operate, and He Himself ordained them to their sub-authority. Jacob has objected to the term "Vicar of Christ" as something that should be reserved for God alone, but that is silly, since "Vicar" means "Steward" or "Representative". In a sense, we are all vicars of Christ, but [the pope is] one of them in a particular sense. But a vicar must faithfully represent Christ--he does not rob Christ of His Authority, but rather, manifests it!

Because of these two completely different stances RC's will not agree with Protestants on the 5 Sole's of the Refermation (I personally don't think that you can separate them, they are 1 giant Sole in 5 parts).

I still am not sure what they are. Let me see if I got them right:

Grace alone
by Faith alone
through Christ alone
to the Glory of God alone.
And Scripture alone.

So that's a 4-1 sola and one more...

Catholics agree with Grace alone, Christ alone, and the Glory of God alone. It is simply the protestant understanding of Faith Alone and Scripture Alone that we disagree with.

I guess that's why the debate isn't covering "Grace, Christ, or God's Glory alone" since on those points we agree. And I guess that's why the 5 Solas aren't called "The Pillars of Protestantism", but only Faith alone and Scripture alone.

One last thing:
Gregory, You are a big stickler for Apostolic Succession. That is a large part of your support for the RC church. Do you honestly believe that as a Protestant I cannot trace my "Spiritual" heritage right back to Christ?

I don't believe that is the question of Apostolic Succession. AS refers specifically to the faith transmitted generation by generation through the successive ordination of bishops descended from the Apostles.

Further, no, I don't, because I believe that Protestantism introduces novel and erroneous teachings that no one before Martin Luther believed. In that regard, then, no, you cannot trace your faith back to Christ.

What you believe correctly, in line with the historic church, you believe solely wholesale from Catholicism, but Protestantism rejected so much and added so much that you cannot trace it back. I'm sorry.

No, I don't know the name of the guy who discipled the guy who discipled the guy who discipled me.

Even that is not the issue. Discipleship is not ordination to ministry, let alone ordination to Bishop. I didn't make up the definition of Apostolic Succession, nor did I make it a quality of the True Church. The authors of the Nicene Creed did that, when they said, "We believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

However, if I put more time and effort into it that I am willing to put in, I am 100% positive that it would trace right back to Christ!

Possibly, but you still aren't a bishop, and that still doesn't mean that somewhere back just before John Calvin Apostolic Succession was broken due to false teaching.

And you may say, sure well, it goes right through the RC church.

That was my point up to "just before John Calvin".

That isn't the point here.

It is precisely the point, because up until the Reformation, the Catholic Church was the Church, and the Reformers left that Church.

The point is that the Church of Christ is not some Institution.

Of course it is! It has rules and guidelines and clear membership requirements and leadership and is a visible thing.

It is Christ's body.

Of course it is, but what is a Body but an institution? How can you have one in the sense of a group of people comprising it, without it being an institution?

Christ is the head, the brain if you will. He tells His body what to do...no one else.

But that doesn't negate the institutional factor. [Rather, I would suggest that it increases the institutional concept.]

The Body of Christ did not become an institutionalized body until sometime between 300 and 500 years after Christ was crusified.

On what historic basis do you make that claim? If Paul was writing Timothy about instituting Bishops and Priests right off the bat, and we can look at the historical record and see how the Church was organised, how can you make such a claim?

You also speak very highly of Unity, what was the early church so unified on? Was it not what the write of Hewbrew refers to as Elementary doctrine? Hebrews 6:1-2

"Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

Yes, but it was also the stuff that the author of Hebrews wanted to leave behind, to move onto the "mature Christian stuff".

I don't know what translation you are using but "washings" is a reference to "baptsims" which is something you claim the early church agreed about, but you and I don't. So in that sense alone (and I could pick apart the rest of the list as well) we are not agreed and your argument fails.

So they all agreed upon these, and were moving on toward maturity. What is this Maturity? To know Christ to be in fellowship with Christ...not through a system, but through a friendship and intimate relationship with Christ.

Is that what the text says? It called the knowledge of Christ "elementary doctrine"! The "Mature doctrine" seems to refer to the rest of the book, especially the next chapters, which typologically demonstrate how Christ fulfils the Old Testament. In fact, it lays the groundwork for our faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice, eternally present before God, being made present to us so that we can participate in it!

In fact, in the Early Church, it was the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, that were considered the "Mature" doctrines.

Again I don't see that Christ would want His body Institutionalized.

In Christ,

David

Christ Himself ordained Apostles to do His Work, and said to Peter that He would build His Church on him. Then He sent them out to do so, and in so doing, they appointed deacons, priests and bishops, and thus institutionalised the Church!

Your personal hangup about a "personal relationship" being hindered by "the Church" is really hard for me to grasp! We've been through it before, and we still aren't getting through to each other. But there is no contradiction to Christ's Body being an institution. Maybe you're confusing "institution" with "business"?

Anyway, it was a pleasure responding to you. I hope you continue to try to understand the Catholic faith, even if you don't end up accepting it--so that you don't misrepresent it.

God bless
Gregory

Was (or is) the Reformation Necessary? An examination of Protestantism’s doctrinal Pillars: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide -- 3

Interlude--Part 1

There have been some side-debates happening at Jacob's Blog that are worth noting. Especially since Jacob distilled one of the discussions into his article, Reformation Debate Part 3. Originally, the comments were made in the comment section of Reformation Day by a cool Catholic guy named Jon, whom I "met" at Dave Armstrong's blog, Cor ad Cor Loquitur.

This interlude in the debate revolves around the consequences of Sola Scriptura, especially the multiplicity of denominations in Protestantism and the nature of what the Church is. While this branch of the topic was not originated by myself, since Jacob is including it in our debate, I feel compelled to add my thoughts, as well. It's awesome to have backup from someone like Jon, though, and his description of how the Church works, and what the Church is, really got me thinking and made a lot of things make sense for me.

Jacob currently is away, and will not be updating until later this week. Because of Blogger's moderation program, not all the comments that have been submitted at his blog are visible yet. For now, I will provide the debate as it stands now. Jon's words will be in Brown. Jacob's, as usual, will be in Black. My comments will be original to here, and thus obviously in the default blue. They will occur throughout the whole post, per the usual. Obviously, since I agree with Jon, I'll be commenting on his words rather less frequently, and usually only to clarify anything I might find unclear, or to add Scriptural support for his claims. On with the show!

jon said...
[i'm one of gregory's transplants and i promise to be civil.]

As a convert to Roman Catholicism, I have always marveled at the prot[estant] concept of 'the Church.' What is 'the Church' to a prot[estant], especially to an evangelical (b/c they seem to be more anti-'high' church than most, save the pentecostals)?

Actually, coming from Pentecostalism myself, they were very anti-high-church and anti-liturgy, claiming it "hindered the movement of the Spirit." Maybe Jon had some different experiences with Pentecostals. Cool.

Is it a loose, spiritual confederation of believers that transcends denominational labels but that no one can really agree on who's 'in' and who's 'out?' (after all--Jesus knows, as his sheep recognize his voice, and that's all that matters, I heard many times.) 1Tim.3:15 calls the church the "pillar and foundation of truth." What Church is this? and why isn't Scripture the 'pillar' and the 'foundation' of truth itself if that is all we need for salvation? Or is our salvation also dependant somehow on our PARTICIPATION in the body of Christ, or as an attachment to the 'vine' of Christ, His body, the Church? Or is it a "city on a hill" that is visible, recognizable, distinguishable from its surroundings; a 'body' of interlocking, inter-dependant parts inseparable from the whole? For so long as a non-catholic Christian I struggled with why God took a community He had an exclusive covenant relationship with and then irreperably shattered that community into a thousand-million pieces, presumably to give the benefits of the whole to each individual guaranteeing they wouldn't cooperate as a community any longer but then admonishing them to do so. I also struggled with--b/c I was raised anti-catholic, by the very nature of my prot[estant] upbringing, even if my parents never even discussed Catholicism at all--why Catholics seemed like they lived up to Jesus' prayer "that they may be ONE" (StJohn17,18) while embodying Paul's "traditions of men" (much discussed before): how can a heretic church maintain that degree of unity? And I say 'I strugged' b/c I KNEW instinctively that I didn't have it in myself to 'go solo,' to have this 'I've got Jesus and my Bible and that's all I need; I'll use the church community as a help, but not as a necessity for salvation'-attitude towards my faith, so I began to search, ending up having to re-think everything my devout evangelical parents taught me, God bless 'em.

To which Jacob said...
Thanks for the comment. I believe that the church is the body of Christ.(1 Cor. 12:12-13)And I believe that being a part of the body (that is to maintain fellowship with other believers using their gifts and abilities together for the Lord) is crucial to the health of each persons spiritual walk. Without being a part of the body of Christ Christians can certainly render themselves useless. But nowhere in scripture does it teach that fellowhip in the church is necessary for salvation.

I agree with Jon that this is a contradictory statement. That will be drawn out more completely below, but ask yourself, reader, how something can have been amputated from the body and yet still be alive?

I don't believe that the church is some invisible entity, but a very real presence. Indeed all who trust in Christ alone by faith through grace, are a part of the church. We are meant to shine our light before all men so they may glorify God. (Matt. 5:16)

It's all very fine and grandiose talk, and indeed, it is true. But in the eyes of the world, the Church is fragmented, disunified, and broken. It most certainly is not a single body. It is not a recognisable entity. And its power is greatly lessened because of this. If the Church is not an invisible entity, Jacob, pray tell, what does it look like? And if you can describe it as I could describe you by your photo, does your description match the biblical description of what the Church should be?

The problem is that (as it appears to me) the Roman Catholic church tryes to equivelate the church as an institution, when indeed it is the body of Christ that makes up the church.

I fail to see how "body" and "institution" are two different things. Christ "instituted" (originated, founded, inaugurated, started, began, established, etc.) His Church, and so thoroughly identified Himself with it, that He called it His Body. One who is a part of Christ's body is ipso facto a part of the institution of the Church.

Moreover, institution is a word that refers to a relationship, such as "The Institution of Marriage." David (Mark 1:17) objects to the institution of religion in favour of a "relationship with Jesus." Yet, they are one and the same thing. In fact, "the institution of marriage" is perhaps the most common metaphor for the Church! If it isn't the most common, it is second only to The Body.

I really do not understand the false dichotomy between "the institutional Church" and "The Body of Christ". It is a generation X-type reasoning, decrying the old institutions in favour of a rebellious and "free" world and spirituality! An institution is a structure or system with a coherent purpose, rules, and methods. A body is not less so! Yet you seem to advocate a body that can reorganise itself at any time, or separate itself, and yet still be a recognisable body! If your body did that, you would cease to resemble anything that could be mistaken for Jacob Allee. It is the system of bones, muscles, nerves, veins, etc. all operating according to the structure and rules that God designed us with that makes you and I who we are as corporeal beings.

The Body of Christ is more than a simple metaphor, and even if it was, a metaphor is useless if it cannot properly correlate the two comparisons. A body is as I described it, so the Church must have those essential properties of a body. If you want to know what a body comprised of a group of people looks like, look up "Corporation" in the dictionary! If we are the Body of Christ, then we are "Christco." Yet I assume you'll have a greater disdain for "corporation" than for "institution."

1 Tmothy 3:15 "..which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." (NASB)

Obviously the view of the church is crucial to the interpretation of this verse.

But that begs the question: what is the proper understanding of that verse?

The protestant understanding would be that the church, who are believers and followers of Christ, are the pillar and support of the truth.

Oh, well thank you. That cleared everything right up! Christians make up the Church! Who knew? But your reasoning fails in that each individual Christian is not a pillar or foundation of the truth. In fact, the multiplicity of opinion on what "truth" is in Protestantism (contraception, gay marriage, and divorce, on the moral side, and sacramentalism vs. symbolism, predestination vs. free will, and charismatism vs. cessationism on the doctrinal side) demonstrate that individual Christians or many times even individual branches of Christianity do not live up to the Biblical description of 1 Timothy 3:15. Again, I refer you to "corporation", which is an organisation that possesses an individual identity than that of its individual constituents. This fits in well with the Body of Christ idea. Our identity is Christ, and only ultimately so as we are all a part of His Body.

As far as being against high church, yes I am.

I'm not entirely sure by your response that you even know what "high church" means.

I detest the fact that the pope has been given titles such as "holy father" and "the vicor[sic] of Christ" and so on. Names that before only belonged to God Almighty Himself.

God is Christ's representative?! Do you know what "vicar" means?! You once again are building paper tigers and knocking them down, rather than actually interacting with Catholic beliefs.

That is but one of my disaprovals, but more of that will come out in the debate as it continues on.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm sure more of your misrepresentations and misunderstandings indeed will come out. Oh, how I look forward to that...

Jon replied...
thank you for your welcome, gregory, jacob!

Sadly, I think that the ancient, venerated concept of "the church," what it is and what it does, is dead outside of the 'high' churches (in many places, Christians don't even like the name "Church": they prefer 'worship center,' or 'community-something-or-the-other').

For the record, 'high' churches do not refer specifically to Catholic Churches. There are high Anglican churches, high Episcopalian churches, high Lutheran churches, high Methodist churches, etc. It usually refers to a more traditional and liturgically-based church, rather than the "free" churches like Pentecostals and SBCs.

here's a case in point:

"Without being a part of the body of Christ Christians can certainly render themselves useless. But nowhere in scripture does it teach that fellowhip in the church is necessary for salvation."

To me these are contradictory statements: in the first line you equate 'the church' with the body of Christ, in the second, it's back to being 'the church' again--ie, merely a "fellowship" of sorts. I mean, if Jesus equates Himself with His Church ("Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?") and it is His BODY, then why is it such a stretch to say that the way I remain attached to the vine is by remaining ONE with Christ's body, the Church?

Good point. This passage in Acts 9 is why I believe that Paul, who first compared the Church to Christ's body, and probably had this experience in mind when he did so, meant something more than a metaphor by it.

And to me, one's view of the church is not just crucial to the interpretation of that one verse but to EVERYTHING--after all, the church IS Jesus on this earth: He is no longer physically present (save in the Eucharist, another topic) EXCEPT thru His Church...how can this NOT be front and center for every Christian?

Even as a Protestant Pentecostal, I understood that we are the Body of Christ here on earth--that we physically manifest Christ to the world! The Audio Adrenaline song "Hands and Feet" just started running through my head.

And it is, by the way, one of the only ways for a non-catholic Christian to understand his Catholic brother: how the Church sees and understands that IT IS JESUS means that AS JESUS 1. the church forgives sins John 20:22-23; James 5:15 2. is infallible (on faith and morals) Matthew 16:18; Luke 10:16; John 16:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Timothy 3:15. Examples could be multiplied. 3. interprets Scripture (after all, the Church wrote it!) 2 Peter 1:20-21; 3:16-17 4. is the fountain of all grace 2 Corinthians 4:7-18--especially v. 15, where Paul talks about enduring hardships for the sake of proclaiming the Gospel of grace, and thereby (v.15) spreading grace. See also Titus 3:15, speaking of baptism as a bath of regeneration 5. has REAL spiritual power to "loose and bind" (even in heaven!) Matthew 16:19; 18:18 6. casts out satan Luke 10:17-20; Mark 16:17-18; Revelation 12:11. Again, examples could be multiplied. 7. heals spiritually and physically Mark 16:17-18; 1 Corinthians 12:9; James 5:13-16, etc. 8. does even MORE than our Lord did (as He said His followers would) John 14:12. Only in this context can one understand how the Catholic Church sees itself--it isn't just a matter of applying titles like 'Holy Father' or 'Vicar of Christ'--in another way YOU and I are 'vicars' of Christ (we are, after all, 'Christians,' or 'little Christs.')

Jacob said...

"Without being a part of the body of Christ Christians can certainly render themselves useless. But nowhere in scripture does it teach that fellowhip in the church is necessary for salvation."

I see why that statement sounds contradictory. As I look at it I admittedly didn't word it very well. What I mean to say is that it's not necessary for a Christian who is part of the Body of Christ to have fellowship with the rest of the body to actually be saved. However if as part of the body of Christ they cut themselves off from the fellowship, they are simply a hand or toe out there on their own. So fellowship with the body of Christ which is the church is vital for spiritual growth, but not for salvation itself.

This is still very much a contradiction--and it is only because of your minimalistic view of "salvation" that you don't see this yourself. Eternal life does not begin when we die. It is not "fire insurance." It is something that begins here and now, through knowing Jesus and being united with Him (John 17:3). The means by which that is effected is in participation with His Body, the Church. You say that if part of the body cuts itself off, it becomes somehow less effective "out there on their own". I should say so! It dies! How can something dead, spiritually, have eternal life?! This is the contradiction! If a foot is cut off from the body, it dies. There is no life in it. Since obviously we are not talking about physical death in the case of Christians cutting themselves off of the Body of Christ, the only alternative is spiritual death!

Or, to use Jesus' analogy of the vine--those who are cut off are fit only to be burned! John 15:6

Jon had the last comment in that particluar article:
The "Patristic Era" of the Church, or the era of the early Church Fathers, streches roughly from the middle of the 1st century to the middle of the 8th, and determining who was a 'Father' of the early church came down to four criteria for post-patristic Christians:
1. orthodoxy
2. holiness of life
3. church approval
4. antiquity
I think the 'rule of four' (dating, after all, from the 700s AD) is a good rule of thumb for just about any new-fangled thing introduced into christendom these days, and the concept of the church as a help but unessential (like the concept of tongues--which I read from your site with interest--or the concept of the rapture) is one such concept: 1. is it orthodox? 2. does it foster a holy life? 3. does it have a modicum of church approval? 4. how OLD is the idea? especially that last one--that criterion alone would sink a lot of the ideas floating around and which I think the Bible condemns in Hebrews13:9.

That's a good rule. I'll have to remember that. :)

From there, Jacob issued a new post, entitled Reformation Debate Part 3, which he described as his "formal response to Jon."

Here it is in its entirety:

This is actually not a formal response to Gregory, but to Jon. Jon brought up some thing that I felt got at the heart of some serious issues and so I chose to first respond to them. Jon's words will be in green, and my own in blue. Except where Christ is quoted that will be in red.

[This is me. Obviously the colours are going to remain consistent throughout this post, so happily disregard Jacob's key on this blog. It makes perfect sense on his own, however.]

thank you for your welcome, gregory, jacob! sadly, i think that the ancient, venerated concept of "the church," what it is and what it does, is dead outside of the 'high' churches (in many places, Christians don't even like the name "church": they prefer 'worship center,' or 'community-something-or-the-other'). Here's a case in point:

(Quoting me) "Without being a part of the body of Christ Christians can certainly render themselves useless. But nowhere in scripture does it teach that fellowship in the church is necessary for salvation."

to me these are contradictory statements: in the first line you equate 'the church' with the body of Christ, in the second, it's back to being 'the church' again--ie, merely a "fellowship" of sorts.

(let me jump in here) I see why that statement sounds contradictory. As I look at it I admittedly didn't word it very well. What I mean to say is that it's not necessary for a Christian who is part of the Body of Christ to have fellowship with the rest of the body to actually be saved. However if as part of the body of Christ they cut themselves off from the fellowship, they are simply a hand or toe out there on their own. So fellowship with the body of Christ which is the church is vital for spiritual growth, but not for salvation itself.

I answered that above, when he first replied to it. No need to repeat myself.

i mean, if jesus equates himself with his church ("saul, saul, why do you persecute ME?") and it is his BODY, then why is it such a stretch to say that *the way* i remain attached to the vine is by remaining ONE with christ's body, the church?

This obviously bring up the issue of whether or not one can lose his salvation. Which scripture is clear about. No, you can not.

Yet this is precisely one of those doctrinal issues about which all of Protestantism is divided! How one interprets these Scriptures is central to one of the biggest debates in Protestantism! So by your very referencing this discussion, you demonstrate the folly of Sola Scriptura, or you say that every group that does not teach Once-Saved-Always-Saved is preaching a false gospel and does not deserve to bear the name "Christian." Since the vast majority do not in fact believe that you cannot lose your Salvation, you must be willing to write a whole lot of people out of the faith!

Romans 8:38,

38"For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Indeed not! But notice, God loves sinners. God even loves those who will never put their faith in Him! Notice something else, conspicuous by its absense: the passage never says that we cannot choose to reject our faith. God never takes away our freedom--in fact, in Salvation He gives a truer freedom than we previously had! But that freedom has a great responsibility--and we can choose to abandon that freedom in favour of slavery to sin (this is what Romans 6 was about, for goodness sake!) If we choose to give up our salvation, we have not "lost" it. No one has taken it from us.

Ephesians 1:13-14,

13"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."

In other words, the Holy Spirit guarantees that what we have heard is true, and that truth leads us to Salvation. But notice what that verse also says: We have not yet acquired possession of that salvation!

Think of it this way. My mom ordered 6 mugs for us for a wedding shower present. One came, and 5 are on their way. They are guaranteed to come, and if they do not, the Hudson's Bay Company owes us for them. Now, Melissa and I have received any number of mugs since that time, and we do not need these. Since they have been delayed in coming (for goodness knows what reason!) we can choose to give them up and change them for something that we would rather have. This annuls the guarantee from HBC because we have let them off the hook, so to speak.

Spiritually, if we choose to turn away from God rather than to persevere in Him, then we let Him off the hook of His guarantee to save us. That guarantee was never unconditional in the first place! It was dependent upon a response of faith and works from us!

The ability to lose your salvation is a false teaching.

In the sense only that the Devil or some external force cannot keep us from it, yes. In the sense that God would ever choose to not give it to us if we wanted it, yes. Our Salvation is morally assured--we can count on the promises of God to save us. However, that does not mean that we cannot choose to give up our salvation. That is the vital distinction. Because we are not ultimately saved until our lives are at their end, in this life, while we have only the guarantee (and a great guarantee it is!) but not the actuality, we can interrupt the delivery and refuse it.

Here we see that once we are in Christ absolutely nothing can separate us from Him, we are sealed with the Holy spirit (no way out) who is our "guarantee of our inheritance (eternal life) until we acquire possession of it To the praise of His glory."

I would disagree with your interpretation, and I would disagree with you based on the multitude of Scripture that suggests that we must remain faithful in order to be saved, and that a failure to do so will result in our loss. After all, according to good Protestant hermeneutics, Scripture interprets Scripture. Moreover, the Church interprets Scripture also, and she has always warned that if we do not persevere, we will be cut off! The novel teaching to the contrary by John Calvin is the new and false gospel. And it leads to the ridiculous quandary, when played out in experience, of saying that one who was a Christian and fell away is either saved regardless of his obedience, or was never actually saved in the first place. Neither of those is tenable. If the former, then God is not just, and the Scriptures commanding our obedience are made nothing. If the latter, we can never know whether anyone else, or even ourselves, are actually saved! What kind of assurance is that?!

The way you stay part of the true vine is faith alone in Jesus which produces an eternal salvation with Him that is secure. The picture that Jesus gives us in John 15:1-8 is this:

1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples."

The branches that are pruned (vs.2) so that the rest may produce more fruit are false Christians that God is clearing out.

Can a "false Christian" really have been grafted onto the vine? That makes no logical sense!

Just like the wheat and the tares, they look alike, however one is genuine and one is not.

No, it is not just like the wheat and the tares! In that parable, the wheat (true Christians) are an entirely different species than the tares (false Christians)! Here in John, both those that are cut off, and those that remain, are actually part of the vine who is Christ! By your logic, Christ grafts into Himself those people who are false pretenders! NO! Christ does not unite Himself with falsity! Those that are a part of Him are true! What this passage teaches is that those who are truly united to Him, unlike actual branches on an actual vine, are people with free will who can choose to disobey Christ and thus are cut away! This passage teaches the opposite of what you want it to, as so many others you have quoted!

Verse four makes it clear that we can't bear fruit apart from the vine (Christ).

Obviously not!

But according to verse 5 if we are in Christ we do bear fruit. And verse 6 declares that those who don't bear fruit don't belong to Him and are thrown in the fire.

Well that's just it! You don't garden much, do you? A branch that is actually part of a tree, that does not bear fruit, needs to be cut off so that it is not still drawing the lifegiving resources of the tree into itself instead of those nutrients going to those which can produce life. If as Christians, we are bearing no fruit, bearing no works of righteousness, not keeping Jesus' commands (John 15:14), then we are cut off from Him! Verse 5 does not say, ipso facto that as part of the tree we will bear fruit. It says rather that if we remain part of the tree we will bear fruit. Try this on your houseplant. Cut 3/4 of a branch off, but leave it attached. See what has happened to that branch in a week! (If you don't have a houseplant, or can't wait that long, I'll tell you--it dies!) It is still part of the tree, but it has not "remained" with the tree, and cuts itself off of the source. It needs to be cut off for the health of the whole plant.

But verse 8 is the real clincher here "you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples."

You gravely misquote the verse, adding the very word that you claim clinches your point:

"you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples."

This verse is rendered according to the New Jerusalem Bible as

"It is to the glory of my Father that you should bear much fruit
and be my disciples."

It is translated in the New American Bible as

"By this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples."

In the King James Version it reads

"Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples."

The New King James Version says

"By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples."

The New American Standard Bible has it as "prove", as does the Revised Standard. However, how modern translators render the text is secondary, I assume you'll agree, to what is actually written in the Greek.

"En touto edoxasthe pater mou ina karpon polun pherete kai genesthe emoi mathetai."

Yeah, it's all Greek to me, too. But the key word here is "genesthe" which is a form of the Greek verb "ginomai", which means:

1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen

a) of events

3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage

a) of men appearing in public

4) to be made, finished

a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought

5) to become, be made

The particular tense of this verb is "future middle deponent indictative".

Again, all Greek to me.

Future--Same as our future tense, and indicates the contemplated or certain ccurrence of an event which has not yet occurred.

Middle Deponent--The middle deponent forms in almost all cases are translated as being in the active voice. So what's the "active voice"?

The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, "The boy hit the ball," the boy performs the action.

Finally, "indicative mood" is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood.

Basically, it's a straightforward way of saying the subject will certainly perform whatever (it's a verb, remember) in the future.

Realising that ginomai means "to become", the verse should be rendered "By this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit and will certainly become my disciples." The verb has nothing whatsoever to do with the word "prove" or "prove to be".

Since you called me out with such disagreement over how the New Jerusalem Bible phrased something (in the article on The Sign of the Cross, I feel justified in pointing out a glaring bit of "interpretive rendering" in your translation (which I assume is the ESV that you have previously prized so highly).

It's the same concept in James Chapter [2--good to know you don't know where it is!] "faith without works is dead." Works don't equal faith, or earn any kind of merrit[sic]. They simply prove that you have faith in Christ and are indeed already saved by the grace of God.

I'm pretty sure v.18 would contradict your interpretation. But either way, James makes it very clear that "Faith alone" will not save you, and as such, we could possibly skip that whole portion of the debate!

and to me, one's view of the church is not just crucial to the interpretation of that one verse but to EVERYTHING--after all, the church IS jesus on this earth: he is no longer physically present (save in the Eucharist, another topic) EXCEPT thru his church..how can this NOT be front and center for every christian?And it is, by the way, one of the only ways for a non-catholic Christian to understand his catholic brother: how the church sees and understands that IT IS JESUS means that AS JESUS

Whoa. Let me stop you right there. The church (Christians) is not or are not Jesus.

Really? Because Jesus seemed to think so: Luke 10:16; Acts 9:4-5. St. Paul seemed to understand what He was getting at, too: 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4:15. According to 1 Peter 1:4, we even share Jesus' divine nature! So, between Jesus', Paul's, and Peter's words, or yours, I'm gonna go with them.

We are Ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) or representatives of Christ Jesus in this world that is not our home.

Yeah, or "vicars", like the Pope!

We are adopted sons of God (Romans 8:14-15).

With Jesus as our older brother! Hallelujah!

But we are most certainly not Jesus in the sense that you are about to go into. We are the body of Christ, yes. But that is a metaphor given to help explain how we as believers have different gifts and abilities that can function together like a hand does with the arm and the arm to the shoulder, and so on (1 Corinthians 12:12-31).

Oh, it's much more than a metaphor! Have you read Acts 9:4-5?

Pointing out that to function properly for Christ we must work together as believers, with Christ as the head (our leader) of the church. But we do not actually become Christ himself on this earth, we simply speak on His behalf with the authority that come from the Bible.

Actually, that authority comes from Jesus. The authority of the Church to write, compile, and canonise the Bible also comes from Jesus! Since the Church predates the Bible (at least the NT) obviously you've got your flow of authority backwards!

1. the church forgives sins

No way man. Only the shed blood of Christ can for give sins.

Helloooo! Were you listening? We forgive sins through Jesus--with the Authority that He gave us!

The authority is in Jesus Christ alone to forgive sins by his bloody sacrifice.

Funny, I could swear that He said, "As the Father has sent Me, so now I send you. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, and if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Hebrews 9:22,

22"Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."

This is exactly why the Eucharist and the "propitiatory" mass is wrong and unscriptural. Only by the shedding of blood can forgiveness of sins be made and received.

Yeeaaah....remember that big ol' Cross?

But the Roman Catholic Catechism says itself in paragraph 1367

"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."

So not only is this a sacrifice without blood that cannot forgive sins anyway, the claim is being made that Christ must be re-presented again and again as a victim for sacrifice.

Uh, no, that's not what it says! The blood that was shed at Calvary is once and for all! That sacrifice of Calvary is eternal, perpetual, constantly before the throne of God in Heaven (Revelation 5:6--the Lamb slain standing before the Altar in Heaven. What did you think that was talking about?). When we participate in the Eucharist, that once-for-all, perpetually-before-the-throne sacrifice is made present again to us ("re-presented") so that we can partake in the fullness of the grace that is offered. This is identical to the Passover, where the blood of the Lamb was shed on the doorposts so the Israelites' firstborn sons would live. But the blood on the doorpost was not enough. The family had to eat the lamb! And so must we, in order to appropriate the fullness of the sacrifice! This is not unbiblical at all! It is a symbolic communion that eliminates this reality that is unbiblical! (John 6:53)

The bible says that Christ was not a victim but went willingly to the cross on our behalf. (Philippians 2:8)

Have you studied theology? 'Cause I'm beginning to wonder! "Victim" is the technical term for a sacrificial offering, willing or not!

And furthermore Christ original sacrifice was enough and He is not to be repeatedly sacrificed.

And so He is not! Did you read the Catechism? Go back and read the clause that I bolded. It's the same sacrifice! Not a new one, not another one! In the Mass, we are taken to Heaven to experience the offering of Calvary in the Throneroom of God!

Hebrews 9:25-26,

25"Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

And Hebrews 10:12,

12"But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,"

Yet He is High Priest forever--and a priest, by definition, sacrifices. If the priesthood is eternal, so is the sacrifice, as Revelation makes clear in its description of The Lamb who was Slain from the foundation of the World!

And John 19:30,

"...He said,'It is finished,' and He bowed His head and gave up His spirit."

In an historic, temporal moment, yes, it was finished when Christ died on Calvary. But from the eternal perspective, it is ever-present to God in Heaven!

The church does not forgive sins, only Christ. His one time sacrifice was enough to cover all sin, forever for anyone who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:26)

No one is contesting this--except that one receives that salvation--even the very message of that salvation, from the Church!

2. is infallible (on faith and morals)

No, the only thing that is infallible is God Himself and His holy word (the Bible).

God is infallible, yes. God's word is infallible, yes. But God's Word was written by sinful men, who for the purpose of writing Scripture were graced by God with the gift of infallibility. Now, why is it such a leap of logic to realise that God did this in order to preserve His Word from error--and thus, if He made the same promise to the Church (Matthew 16:18; John 16:13; 1 Timothy 3:15), that He would not keep His Church as doctrinally pure as He kept His Word? Why is one (a series of infallible books written by fallible men graced with infallibility) a sure and certain thing and the other (a God-ordained institution of fallible men founded to spread the truth--infallibly through that same grace--to all the world) so unlikely?

Or, put another way, if the Church never can decree anything infallibly, how can you be sure that the New Testament that you so cherish is the right collection of infallible books? At best, according to Protestant reasoning, The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books! That is neither very logical, nor very reassuring! On what grounds, outside of a Church that can infallibly make such a decision, do you accept the Bible is the truth?

The Roman Catholic Church claims that when it comes to faith and morals that the Bishops when they speak in one voice are infallible. Or when the the pope speaks on faith and morals he is infallible.

When they are defining an issue of faith or morals as doctrine they are infallible.

And they claim that Peter was the first pope. (Have I said anything incorrect?)

Slight clarification above. It's not your words, but your understanding of those words, which is incorrect.

Well let's look at a few things here for a moment. Galatians 2:11-14,

11"But when Cephas (who is Peter John 1:42) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

So Peter who according to Romans Catholics was the first pope and should have been infallible when it comes to faith and morals was called out by Paul and he "opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." Condemned of what? He was condemned along with the other Jews because their "conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel."

Peter was not defining a doctrine. Infallibility does not extend to a person's behaviour. Peter could be as hypocritical as he pleased, but he could not have officially taught that hypocricy was morally right, nor could he (nor did he) define that Gentiles had to become Jews to be saved. Peter's indecision and hypocricy on this matter does not touch the doctrine of infallibility.

Well if the gospel doesn't relate to faith and morals what does?

Peter did not deny the Gospel. He did not act in accordance with the Gospel. There is a difference.

Peter was denying the truth of the gospel by separating himself from gentile believers because they weren't circumcised. Peter was out of step because the circumcision party was adding a work to the gospel, and they were the ones to avoid fellowship with.

True enough, but Peter never formally declared that true Christianity resided with the Judaisers.

While I'm certain after being called on this that Peter repented, he still sinned and was in error on a crucial subject regarding faith and morals.

Yet, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Peter and James officially and infallibly declared the truth of the Gospel, and not Peter's personal error. Thus, the Grace of Infallibility led Peter to define circumcision as an unnecessary requirement for salvation.

In Matthew 16:23 Jesus even calls Peter Satan for setting his mind on the things of man instead of God.

So what? Again, this is not an issue of infallibiltiy. Infallibility does not equal perfection, neither does it mean that the one who is infallible knows all the answers. What it means is that in a matter of doctrine, the Spirit of God prevents him from proclaiming falsehood as truth. Infallibility is a lot narrower and more specific of an idea than you seem to think.

How about outside the Bible. Are there any examples of popes disagreeing about an issue of faith and morals? Yes.

In the year 1431 one pope condemned Joan of Arc as a heretic and had her burned at the stake.

Study history! No pope ever condemned St. Jeanne! She tried to appeal to him, but the court refused her, condemned her unjustly on false charges, and sentenced her through the secular court. In all, it was almost as severe a travesty of justice as the trial of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ! Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Joan of Arc

Another pope revoked her condemnation 24 years later. And yet another pope exalted her to sainthood in 1920.

As well they should have. Justice was finally served! (And a late date of 1920 is nothing phenomenal. Canonisation is often a long process.)

Quite a deal to go from a condemned heretic, to a saint. But the pope's are "infallible" when it comes to faith and morals? That doesn't appear to be the case.

Since no pope was involved in her actual condemnation, this is more moot a point than your reasoning with St. Peter!

3. Interprets scripture (after all, the church wrote it!)

Men wrote the Roman Catholic Catechism, and made the Roman Catholic traditions, but God wrote the scriptures! Not the church. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Wait, what? The Bible fell from the sky? Tell me, did it have a table of contents in it?

This is especially true since the Old Testament scripture was written by the Jews before the "church" came to be.

Since it was the Church who declared what all the 73 books of the Bible were, it is at least certain that the Church defined the Bible, even if 46 of them weren't actually New Testament. Moreover, since Israel was the "Ekklesia" (or church) of God in the OT, the statement that the Bible originated in the Church is not inaccurate, though perhaps imprecise.

As far as who can interpret scripture, well yes the church interprets scripture by the Holy Spirit. But the church, again, is the body of Christ. All who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ as their savior are a part of the body of Christ and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13)

Oh, I see. So any Christian, "even a ploughboy" to quote Luther, is fully able through the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture correctly. Right. I see now. It makes sense! So then how pray tell, can there be so much disagreement, contradiction, and out-and-out error in the Protestant Church?!

It's a wonderful notion that the Holy Spirit and I can figure out the faith by reading the Bible! In practice, it simply does not hold true!

So either anyone who doesn't agree with you is not actually a Christian (since their interpretation of Scripture is different, and thus they obviously don't have the Holy Spirit to guide them), or else God doesn't care about error and disunity in His Church, and Jesus was a deluded liar! Those are your choices--those, or the plain truth that not just anyone can interpret Scripture, that there must be an authoritative and infallible interpreter, and that interpreter is the Church!

It is by the Holy Spirit that each Christian interprets scripture. This doesn't mean that there are multiple interpretations of scripture, indeed there is only one. But because we are weak in our flesh (sinful nature) people can certainly misinterpret scripture. That is why it's so important to learn and practice solid Bible hermeneutics.

So now it's "Anyone with enough scholarship, learning, and proper education" can interpret Scripture? Well, that's a far cry from "everyone" isn't it? And why should education be a factor if God Almighty Himself is guiding me into the correct interpretation? You are contradictory!

The Bereans went to the scriptures themselves to make sure what Paul was telling them was true (Acts 17:11) and they are commended for it.

The Bereans made sure that Paul wasn't just making something up, yes! It was great that they didn't just take his word for it, on this new teaching! And yes, they could understand how the Bible would have said so. But let me ask, would those Berean Jews have understood the Scripture to say what Paul preached, had he not preached it? Since the vast majority of Jews do not, it's a safe assumption. Notice, the Bereans were commended for their openness and diligence in receiving the message, not for reading the Bible and arriving at the correct interpretation themselves, as the Spirit guided them!

Christians have a responsibility to go to the scripture themselves and make sure what they are being taught adds up. In order to do that it certainly involves interpretation.

And to an extent, Scripture is pretty easy to interpret. But the issue is when there are competing and contradictory interpretations, there is of necessity, error. Either the Eucharist is literally Jesus, or it is not. We cannot both be right. We can make our arguments, and we can appeal to Scripture. The Christian is bound to examine those Scriptures to see if we are obviously out in left field. But in the final examination, especially when Scripture is not clear, the Church has to rule.

4. is the fountain of all grace

Again, no. God is the fountain of all grace. It is He that became a man and lived a perfect life, fulfilled the law and died in our place for sin. Romans 3:23-24,

23"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

You are really missing the point that the Church, as Christ, united with Him, participates in His giving of Grace to the world. God, in this image, is the source of grace. The fountain is not the source of the water, but the means by which the water is distributed. Through proclaiming the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, the Church does act as the Fountain of Grace, by bestowing the Grace of God to the world. (Romans 10:12b-15)

The same Lord is Lord of all, and His generosity is offered to all who appeal to Him, for 'all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
How then are they to call on Him if they have not come to believe in Him? And how can they believe in Him if they have never heard of Him? And how will they hear of Him unless there is a preacher for them? And how will there be preachers if they are not sent? As Scripture says: 'How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of the messengers of good news.'

God conveys His Grace through the Church. It is in that sense in which we are the Fountain of Grace!

5. has REAL spiritual power to "loose and bind" (even in heaven!) 6. casts out Satan 7. heals spiritually and physically 8. does even MORE than our lord did (as he said his followers would). only in this context can one understand how the catholic church sees itself--it isn't just a matter of applying titles like 'holy father' or 'vicar of christ'--in another way YOU and I are 'vicars' of christ (we are, after all, 'christians,' or 'little christs.')

The continuing assignment of God's power, authority, and even His holy name to the Roman Catholic Church and its bishops is sickening to me.

Don't read your Bible then, because it is the Bible that says it, not us! I gave ample references above.

I am most certainly not going to accept a title that Biblicly speaking is a name of God. And I refuse to call anyone "Father" especially "Holy Father" besides my Father in Heaven. Matthew 23:9,

"And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."

Mmm hmm. What do you call that man that married your mom, out of curiosity? I'm pretty sure that passage referred to not calling anyone a teacher, and yet you've tossed that word around. Oh! When you go to that guy who wears the stethescope and prescribes medications, what do you call him? Doctor? Hey! That's the Latin word for "Teacher"! Fie! How dare you call these people titles that are proper to God alone?! Oh, wait, because Jesus isn't speaking literally! He's not saying you can't give these people those titles! He is saying that when we call someone "father" we recognise their fatherhood is actually symbolic and metaphorical of God's Fatherhood, and not the other way around!

Call no man "Father"?

Jacob is back now, and has updated the comments. Since I began my summation, John replied to Jacob saying...

"If you believe (In Christ to save you)you will be grafted in, if not you wont."

No, you are already grafted in, he makes it quite clear:

"..otherwise you too will be cut off." ([Romans 11:]22)

As to eph.1:13+14:

"..Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance..."

Yes, OF COURSE the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our salvation! But does that mean we cannot offend the Holy Spirit and drive Him away, sinning against Him in such a fashion that it is counted against us even "in the world to come" (Matt.12:32)? Of course we can! So long as we nurture a right relationship with the Holy Spirit (the kind of relationship that binds us to the Father and to the Son, John16:13-15) He is the sign that we are "sealed", "PROVIDED WE REMAIN IN HIS KINDNESS". If we do not "remain" (we are already there, we must "remain"), we too "will be cut off." but we can offend the Holy Spirit (otherwise what you are saying is that Christians cannot commit the unpardonable sin, something untenable; only Christians HAVE the Holy Spirit in a relationship form--Luke11:13) as Jesus warned us (Mark3:9, Luke12:10). As for the rest, I don't quite understand how you take these verses that are interpretable either way--"the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable", sure, but you can still go to hell with your free will--but cannot/will not hear Jesus' words to His disciples as being literal as well: "whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them." how is that difficult? and why--allow me a tangent here--did it take christendom 1,500 years to figure out that that was not what Jesus meant? Where was the Holy Spirit, who was to guide us "in all truth" (John16:13)? To me, like an OT Jew, history is HIS-Story (I'm sure you've heard that one before). Over and over again, God tells the Jews, "remember." "Remember when I brought you out of Egypt, guided you thru the wilderness, settled you in the promised land...remember! I AM the God of your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...remember!" And all of their feasts and fasts were based in their past historical relationship with God. So if we are the 'wild shoot grafted in the place of the Jews,' why wouldn't He continue that same covenant relationship with His Body, the Church? Why would He allow--per prot[estant] thinking--the "real" church to go underground (something never prophesied) and remain virtually anonymous for 15 centuries? I don't get it...
ok--back from tangent, sorry--

"I get that we are His hands and feet and all that. But it's not meant to be taken as we are "littereally Jesus Himself"."

Then pray explain how it is that if I have intercourse with a prostitute, Jesus has intercourse with a prostitute (1Cor.6:15-17)...

And this is key in my thinking--because if you are right, mariology (as well as a host of other RC teachings) is idolatry; if I am right (and we PUT ON Christ, we longer exist, but HE in us), Mary is my mother as surely as she is Christ's, and God is my Father as surely as He is Christ's.

To this Jacob replied (And I'll begin inserting comments again):
Well Jon, you make the "seal" in ephesians 1:13 a pretty weak seal since it's all so easy to break out of.

Jacob, I think you're thinking of a "seal" like those tinfoil seals under the lid of a jar of peanut butter or Tylenol, to seal in freshness and display evidence of tampering. But that's not what the Seal of the Spirit refers to at all. Rather, the Seal is the official "signature" of the King declaring that something has His Authority. Christians aren't "sealed in tight." We're under the sign and seal of Christ. There is a large difference when it comes to the issue of Salvation and our response.

God has sealed us, yes. He has given His Solemn Oath that He will not reject us or consign us to Hell if we live for Him. But the Bible repeatedly discusses our response and responsibility to live accordingly! The Epistle to the Ephesians itself is split in half, first describing what God has done for us, and then, with Chapter 4, describing our responsibilties to Him.

As far as being cut off, it's because no fruit is being produced which shows that a person isn't a true believer.

But that isn't what the text says. In order to have been grafted in, you have to have been a true believer! Yet for whatever reason, the works cease, and your sloth destroys your faith (that's why sloth is one of the Seven Deadly Sins), and you show by your actions that your faith is, indeed, Dead.

When James talks about "faith without works is dead" he points to this same principle. If you have no works, you have no faith.

Exactly. They are two sides of the same coin. Thank you for disproving Sola Fide by your own words!

Works prove that someones faith really exists. It is not necessary for salvation but a sign that they have what is necessary for salvation. FAITH.

You make entirely no sense:
A=B
C=A
Therefore C=B.

Where A is Faith, B is Salvation, C is works and '=' is "necessary for".
Faith=Salvation
Works=Faith
Works=Salvation

But you wish to say that Faith is necessary for Salvation, and works are necessary for faith, but somehow, works are not necessary for salvation! It is a contradiction, plain and simple! If one thing is necessary for another, and a part of one thing is essential to that thing, then by default, the part is necessary for the whole conclusion.

It's the same as saying (by your logic) the bar is necessary for the mousetrap to trap the mouse. The spring is necessary for the bar to operate, but the spring is not necessary for the mousetrap to actually trap the mouse!

Which part is primary (faith more important than works, or less important than works, or equal to works) is immaterial, because both are necessary!

As far as the unpardonable sin: Mark 3:28-30

28"Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" -- 30for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."

The unpardonable sin is unbelief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Uhm, no, no it isn't! Jesus Himself said that a blasphemy against Him is forgivable (Luke 12:10, the parallel passage). Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is decrying a work of God as a work of the Devil, not simply unbelief in the Messiah. It is having such a hard heart that you refuse to hear and recognise the Spirit's voice and work in your life, and would rather attribute it to Satan. I would caution many cessationists who say that charismatic gifts are of demonic origin that they are perilously close to the commission of this sin! I disagree that Jon is right in that only Christians could commit this blasphemy, but certainly they are not exempt from the possibility!

You can't be forgiven by Christ if you don't believe He is the Christ! It's not something where you can be a Christian and then screw up and lose your salvation and never be redeemed. The only sin that can't be forgiven is the sin of unbelief, because you can't be forgiven for that which you don't seek forgiveness for.

But a Christian, quite evidently, can be plagued with such unbelief, and continue in it, until they do renounce their faith. It happens many, many times!

As far as followers of Christ forgiving sins... why don't you get it? If a person comes to me after a message of the gospel and they tell me "I've trusted in Jesus as my savior" I can without hesitance say to them "if indeed you've trusted in Christ to save you, then your sins are forgiven."

Yes, that is true. But Jesus is referring to something more here. If someone sins after trusting in Jesus, the Church has the authority to pronounce forgiveness! Read the end of Sin and Satan for how this works in the Covenant family. Breifly, a sin in the Christian covenant is more than simply a sin against God, but a sin against His Body, the Church. The Church needs to forgive you as well as God, and the priest, as the representative of both Christ and of the Church, makes that pronouncement. Out of curiosity, where in Scripture does it say to confess to God alone for forgiveness? Quick answer, if you're interested in saving yourself some time, is it doesn't.

It's not my pronouncement that forgave them, it's their faith in Christ! I simply declare what has already taken place!

This is all well and good for one who is not a Christian (though I would say that the Bible teaches it is in Baptism that their sins are washed away (Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:20), which nullifies even that part of your argument, but further, once one is in the Covenant, and has forsaken the Covenant, they must now be reinitiated into the Covenant.

You said regarding 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 "then pray explain how it is that if *i* have intercourse with a prostitute, *jesus* has intercourse with a prostitute."

But let's look at the scripture itself.

15"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh."

It never says you force Christ to have sex with a prostitute.

That is exactly what it says! It says that the sexual act makes the two parties "One Flesh". If we are already one with Christ, then Christ is being made "One Flesh" with the prostitute!

In fact if you want to say you litterally are Jesus in the sense that you are tallking about, that's like saying you force Jesus to sin!

Since Paul was talking about the spiritual bond of the sexual relationship, you're analogy is a non sequitur. But even if not, then it certainly demonstrates the severity of sin! Since Christ can have no part in sin, we see certainly that its effects are such as to kill the life of grace within us (in the case of mortal sin) or to at least wound it (in the case of venial sin)! Yet in your Once-Saved-Always-Saved philosophy, sin becomes "no big deal"--certainly not something that could come between you and God! But that teaching is expressly condemned in Scripture! (Romans 6)

Which most certainly isn't the truth.

The truth is that sin is a serious matter and will cut us off from Christ if we do not repent of it through the Sacrament that He has instituted to make such penance!

Simply put we are "members" of the body of Christ. We belong to Him. Don't mix what belongs to Jesus with such things as sexual immorality.

That is a far over-simplification of the thrust of the text, as I laboriously explain above! It's not simply "mixing" but "blending" or "joining"! That is why it is such a major concern to Paul (as indeed is all sin!

And yes, Mariology and numerous other teaching of the RCC are indeed idolotry. Never in scripture are we told to pray or worship to anyone but the living God.

If we were talking about these things in our debate, I would again chastise you thoroughly for misrepresenting our teachings. Since we are not, I'll save myself the correction and simply urge you to remain on topic and not chase after hypothetical cases-in-points, but stick to the issue, in this case, "Ecclesiology".

I'm not going to post this entire article in the comments at Jacob's blog. The elimination of the colour coding alone will take hours. I will simply provide the link.
God bless