Luther's dunghill. Martin Luther liked striking illustrations.

 

And unbiblical ones. If you really believe in sola scriptura show me one place where God's word calls people "dunghills." This disgusting image was conjured up by Luther's seriously disturbed mind, not the Scripture.

 

Justification does not change the dunghill into something else: it covers the dunghill with something that takes away the offensiveness that it has by nature.

 

Really? That is not what My Lord and Savior said:

 

The image you are evoking is PRECISELY what Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. How can you then claim that this was His plan of salvation?

 

Then the process of sanctification begins, through which the dunghill is changed.

 

So transformation IS necessary for salvation in the Protestant view? No, of course not. It is only something visible by which the "christian" can brag before men. It makes no difference to his ultimate end before God because he is "covered over." Again, where does the scripture say this?

 

Luther was talking about how it is that we are both justified and sinful at the same time.

 

Rubbish. You have never read Luther. Luther held that we are ALWAYS both sinners deserving of damnation and extrinsically justified saints. He led this view in formal dialectical tension to the point of logical contradiction. This is why he attacked the idea of the law of non-contradiction. If you want to read what Luther REALLY said about "simul iustus et peccator" read his letter to Jerome Weiser. In that letter he tells Weiser that when he is "tempted by the devil" (i.e., fearful of damnation because of his continuing to commit sins of the flesh) he should go out and commit some sin in order to spite the devil. "Sin strongly , believe more strongly!... The whole Decalogue must go!" I have no need to tell you that the Decalogue (i.e., the 10 Commandments) contain more than mere peccadilloes. This amoralism is identical to the advice later given by the Marquis de Sade to his dissolute followers in order to desensitize them in small things to prepare them for the ultimate liberation from all moral restraint.

 

One day when lecturing on this topic I turned the illustration around and used it to show the difference between the Roman Catholic position and the Protestant one. From Rome's viewpoint, the "grace of justification" actually changes the dunghill into a pile of gold, so that, since it is now pleasing to God, it merits eternal life.

 

Another unbiblical metaphor. The Bible NEVER describes any man as a "dunghill." If we are to hold to the Bible as the primary source of our theological imagery, we should use the RIGHT metaphor for sinful man: the Prodigal Son. Fallen man is not a vile hill of manure before God but a beloved child lost in the wilderness of sin away from the love and care of his father. Justification is our restoration to our Father and our elevation once again to be his heirs.

 

This illustrates the misnomer of the "subjective/objective" metaphor of Protestant systematics. Protestants claim that we Catholics believe in a subjective change in the person while they believe in an objective change of status. In reality we believe in an OBJECTIVE change in the whole person while Protestants believe in a mere "subjective" covering over which actually changes nothing. The only thing objective about the Protestant view is that it treats people like mere OBJECTS, and disgusting one at that. Protestantism fails entirely to grasp the tragedy of sin and instead wallows in self-loathing which is just false humility.

 

Now surely it would seem that such an illustration is far more attractive than Luther's dunghill. However, if we probe a bit further, we realize the danger that Luther saw so clearly. In Rome's concept, that pile of gold can, by the commission of a "mortal sin," be instantly transformed back into a pile of dung! And what is more, through the commission of "venial sins" and through the imperfect performance of penances, the pile of gold can become "impure," so that spots of dung again cling to its shiny surface. This impurity must be removed, not by the application of the pure snow of Christ, but by the suffering of the gold itself, in this life, or in purgatory after death. And, in light of Ott's statement about the "uncertainty of the state of grace," the pile of gold can never really know, outside of a supernatural revelation, whether it is a pile of dung or a pile of gold! In Luther's example, the dunghill is accepted by God because of the perfection of the work of the snow itself, that representing the righteousness of Christ. The centrality of the work of man in Rome's view is clearly seen when contrasted with the Savior-centered work presented by the Reformers based firmly upon the Scriptures.

 

Rubbish. There is not ONE WORD of Scripture to support your "dunghill covered with snow" metaphor anywhere in the Bible. Meanwhile, the problem of post baptismal mortal sin come from the Bible itself:

 

Now if all sins are covered over by an "alien righteousness", why pray for a brother's (i.e., fellow Christian's) sins? Maybe to help him be purified from it? You cannot pray for someone's mortal sins because those KILL THE LIFE OF GRACE in the soul and the sinner himself must repent and turn to Christ to be forgiven for it.

 

This points out again the ludicrous and unbiblical nature of the "dunghill" metaphor.

 

As to the question of certainty we must distinguish between moral certainty, absolute certainty, and the sin of presumption. At any time we can have a moral certainty of our standing before God as his children and heirs as long as we have a penitent heart and zeal for God and his will. Absolute certainty about our ultimate salvation is another unbiblical and illogical innovation. No one can know for certain what their ultimate fate before God is because until we stand before the Throne of Grace we may yet be shown not to be among the elect. Remember the metaphor My Lord and Savior used about this:

 

To assume that you are among the elect without a special revelation of God is the sin of presumption. As Jesus states above, ONLY those who ultimately persevere will be saved, not merely those who respond initially.

 

The heart of every person who has been touched by the Holy Spirit of God knows intuitively that in truth they stand before God solely and only because of Jesus Christ.

 

Amen. This is Catholic doctrine.

 

The faith that holds and clings to Christ and Christ alone, that pleads His righteousness, His perfect obedience, His all-sufficient death, is not going to allow the sinfulness of the heart to rear its ugly head and say, "I have done this or that to bring about my salvation."

 

The Catholic Church does not teach that we bring about our own righteousness. Whatever righteousness we have comes to us from God through Christ. It is because his grace has transformed us that we are able to please him with what we do. But our good works do not earn us justification. They are meritorious before God because GOD HIMSELF HAS WROUGHT THOSE WORKS THROUGH US. Technically they are His mighty deeds done by Christ through the members of his mystical Body. As St. Paul says:

 

The fact that we cling to the righteousness of another, and believe that Christ, as our perfect Substitute, has provided complete forgiveness of sins and has made it possible that His perfect righteousness-His sinless life-can be imputed to us as our present and precious possession, is difficult for many to understand...

 

Especially since the Bible says NOTHING about this. Please show me where it says that we will be judged based SOLELY on the perfect human righteousness of Christ and not based on what we ourselves have done. There are at least a half dozen quotes from the NT that I can think of that would disagree with your views.

 

It is contrary to the natural religious impulses of fallen man to be so bereft of reason for boasting.

 

Strange that St. Paul doesn't agree with you, isn't it? (Cf. Romans 15:17-18)

 

The beauty of the truth of justification by faith in Jesus Christ is clearly portrayed in the precious words of Lynnette Paasch and Deirdre Kirmis:

 

How typically Protestant to now prove alleged Biblical teaching without referring EVEN ONCE to the Scripture but rather by quoting from the opinions of mere men (er...women)! Spare me the hymn lyrics, I want to see SCRIPTURE quoted to support your views, not Protestant traditions.

 

Only those who have realized what it means to give oneself completely to another can understand such words. Peace with God is the present possession of the justified believer. This is not a peace that is transient; it is not a mere truce in a war that might again erupt at any time. This is a lasting peace, based upon the permanent cessation of hostilities.

 

Really? Then what about these quotations:

 

Once again, your views are shown to be mere selective proof-texting which attempts to make void the Word of God and supplant it by the wishful thinking of arrogant men. Your system of salvation is a sham with no biblical foundation. As a Catholic I stand with the Scripture and condemn your views as unbiblical.

 

St. Paul NEVER says that justification is by the faith alone anywhere in his writings. Neither does any other biblical author. The only biblical author to address the "faith alone" question is St. James who clearly says justification is not by faith alone.

 

Now, could someone explain, please, what ELSE brings about the crediting of righteousness to a man's account BEFORE GOD?

 

As I have noted in earlier postings, the concept of working that St. Paul is excluding in Romans 4:4-8 is the working of the Jewish Law especially circumcision. This is proven by the very next verse which Mr. White neglected to quote:

 

It is this type of work which he is saying is unnecessary both for Jews and for Christians. It is also Catholic doctrine that no work earns the grace of Justification, so there should no dispute between us on this point. Justification is a free gift of God that you get gratis via His grace.

 

It is another matter entirely to argue that in this passage St. Paul is teaching the Protestant doctrine of "justification by faith alone" (JBFA). The Protestant doctrine insists that the believing which saves consists of mere assent and trust in certain doctrines without any need for a good will. This is the real point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. The Historic Church following Scripture and Tradition teaches that the " faith" necessary for salvation is a more comprehensive faith than mere assensus & fiducia. It requires the commitment of the will to act in accordance with God's wishes which St. Paul calls in Romans the "obedience of faith." In fact St. Paul tells us in this very beginning and the end of this epistle that it is this obedience which he is wishing to bring about.

 

St. Paul's quotation from Psalm 32 is very interesting. Let us look at the WHOLE Psalm to get the context:

 

David is NOT talking about people being found righteous before God but about those who have had their "anomia" (lawless deeds) forgiven. It is the "anomia" that we should focus on. David is saying that LAWLESS people (i.e., gentiles why have not the law of Moses) can be justified. There is no mention here that good works are not expected. St. Paul made it clear that he rejected that view in chapter 2:

 

You cannot understand chapter 4 if you do not accept the teaching of chapter 2. St. Paul clearly says that only those who do the law will be justified. In a context the law which he describes the Gentiles have is clearly not the Mosaic Law but the law in men's hearts. Does this law consist of works? NO!!! Verse 15 makes it clear that "what the law requires is written on their hearts." It is not the works that save but the disposition of the will that leads to them. It is that will which is called "agape" or "charity." This disposition is assumed by St. Paul to be present in the true Christian throughout all of his letters.

 

The quotation from Psalm 32 says specifically that sins AGAINST THE LAW OF MOSES were forgiven in the OT Scriptures to show that NT Christians don't need to obey the Law of Moses in order to be considered righteous. In fact the Psalm clearly states that we must have a GOOD WILL towards the things of God before we can be forgiven. If we don't have that, we cannot know that we have sinned and are in need of forgiveness. The last verses of the psalm are addressed by God to the penitent. Pay special attention to the following:

 

CLEARLY, the Psalm teaches that true repentance includes a firm purpose of amendment and a desire to be led by God wherever He directs. We must follow his teachings and "keep with" Him. This particular viewpoint is typical of the Wisdom literature and we can see an affinity here between David's teaching, St. Paul's, and the parallel material in James 2.

 

In short, there is no dispute between us that in Romans St. Paul is talking about justification by faith. The dispute revolves (in part) about what the word "faith" means. If you agree that a saving faith includes the will to do what God wants us to do, as well as assent and trust, there is no dispute between us.

 

Which work can you show me in Paul, or anyone else, that brings about the crediting of righteousness?

 

That should be enough, I think, to make the point. Jesus himself recommended that the way to righteousness is to keep the commandments, NOT to have faith alone. This is echoed by St. Paul, St. Peter and by the Psalmist who specifically says that Phiehas was reckoned to be righteous because of what he had done.

 

Now in order to keep the commandments, you need faith because as St. Paul says:

 

So there is no opposition between faith and works; nor are they unconnected, or merely coincidentally present. Good works are an INTEGRAL part of a saving faith which is lived out in the real world and god will reward us for wht we do. It is not good works per se but our commitment to God lived out by a faith working through love by which we will be judged to be righteous.

 

Many Protestants say that the concept of justification by faith alone (JBFA) is implied by St. Paul in different places. Historic Christianity has NEVER believed this.

 

Even if this were true, it wouldn't matter. Paul had to struggle against those who denied the supremacy of grace all his life. If false teachers could arise when there were apostles on earth, why not afterward?

 

This is the typical Protestant excuse used to justify innovative doctrines that are neither Biblical nor historically Christian. Let me reiterate it once more. NO ONE in all of Christian history taught what Luther and his fellow apostates taught about justification. Not Jesus Christ, not St. Paul, not St. James, not St. Augustine, not St. Thomas Aquinas. NO ONE. Luther's doctrine was unique and innovative to the point that Alister McGrath in his 2 volume work "Iustitia Dei" admitted that the Deformation doctrine of justification was a "theological novum." Peter Toon in his historical survey "Justification and Sanctification" states the same thing. This means that for 1500 years the Christian Church taught a different doctrine of salvation than the one Luther espoused.

 

What does Scripture have to say to help us see this?

 

As a Catholic, I take the word of God seriously, especially what My Lord and Savior has taught us in the Gospels. As such anyone who says that the Church could teach the wrong thing from the beginning through all generations up to the 16th Century has Apostatized from Biblical faith. He has made void the word of God because he claims that the gates of Hell DID prevail in the Church and that the Holy Spirit was not present to teach us all things and have us remember what Jesus taught. Anyone who comes preaching another gospel other than the one which the Historic Church had received does not believe either in Jesus or the Holy Spirit and is rightly declared anathema or accursed by St. Paul.

 

They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will. And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen (Clement of Rome, 32)

 

As usual, Mr. White fails to complete the quotation and misrepresents it. Pope St. Clement I continues:

 

Pope St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (@95AD)

 

Please note that in Chapter 35 of Pope St. Clement's epistle he says that having our mind "fixed on God through faith" is not enough. We must also seek to do things that please him and are in harmony with his will while casting off all connection to sin. It is obvious that the faith that Pope St. Clement spoke of in Chapter 32 was the complete "saving faith" that includes faith, hope and charity. This is the Catholic doctrine of justification.

 

I would hope that the members of this list would in particular pay attention to the prohibition of "strife, malice and deceit, gossip and slander, hatred of God, pride and arrogance, vanity and inhospitality" as they consider their own conduct in recent days.

 

Sorry, but again, please answer the question: what ELSE brings about the crediting of righteousness to a man's account BEFORE GOD Dr. Sippo? What other thing does the Bible say must be added to GAIN justification and to MAINTAIN it? If you can't show us, then sola fide is defended. Now, as to the old "Jewish law" argument, where does the passage I cited say anything about the Jewish law? Please cite where in that passage Paul speaks of ho nomos. He doesn't. He specifically contrasts the one WORKING with the one BELIEVING, and he does so not in the context of DOING THE LAW but in the context of seeking to EARN something. That is what the passage says, Dr. Sippo.

 

It is this type of work which he is saying is unnecessary both for Jews and for Christians. It is also Catholic doctrine that no work earns the grace of Justification, so there should no dispute between us on this point.

 

Justification is a free gift of God that you get gratis via His grace.

 

No one may earn the INITIAL grace of justification in Roman theology, but you can LOSE it, and you can INCREASE it. That's not justification, at least not *biblical* justification. The believer has the righteousness of Jesus Christ---not a righteousness that is INHERENT in himself. How can the righteousness of Jesus Christ be "increased"? It can't.

 

It is another matter entirely to argue that in this passage St. Paul is teaching the Protestant doctrine of "justification by faith alone" (JBFA). The Protestant doctrine insists that the believing which saves consists of mere assent and trust in certain doctrines without any need for a good will.

 

You might really wish to take the time to learn a little bit about the position you decry so strongly, Dr. Sippo. I corrected you on this years ago....but, then again, you might not have heard that. You might have been away at the time. Be that as it may, your objection has as much validity as my saying "Rome teaches the Pope is sinless, so, let's look at some sinful Popes...." Rome *doesn't* teach that, and if you were honest with my own writings, or those of Calvin, or the WCF, or Hodge, or Warfield, or Edwards, or Sproul, etc. and etc., you wouldn't say what you just said. It's rathe ironic: I just got back from worship, and I taught this morning in Bible Study on the nature of saving faith....and how it is a divine gift given by God to the elect as part of regeneration (1 Timothy 1:14, Ephesians 2:8-10, 1 John 5:1, Phil. 1:29, etc. and etc.). If you understood the Reformed position, you'd know that your words miss the mark---badly.

 

This is the real point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants.

 

Of course, it isn't, which makes the rest of your presentation rather meaningless. Sadly, I sent you my books years ago. You refused to read them (or, if you did, you then dishonestly misrepresented them), so I don't see much use repeating what you *could* have known for years.

 

It strikes me as interesting that Dave Armstrong says he won't spend a dime on "anti-Catholic" books (i.e., Protestant ones), and Dr. Sippo, though in possession of literature that would correct his misapprehensions, refuses to avail himself of such material. Strange indeed.

 

I gave you several verses in my original posting.

 

I will repeat them for you:

 

And let us not forget the following quote which I used in our debate on justification 7 years ago:

 

Pay special attention to verses 4-7. I have added emphasis to point out the specific matter under discussion.

 

Also, let us not forget the teaching of my Lord and Savior:

 

Please note that in verse 37, these people are called "righteous." Why? Read verses 35, 36, & 40. Please note that there is no mention of faith at all in any of these passages. These people do call Jesus "Lord" and so I assume them to be Christians, so they must have had faith. But did faith alone save them? No. Read verses 35, 36, & 40 again.

 

Now let us continue with this quote:

 

We should note that sheep and goats were usually kept together by the Bedouin herder so that this story is about one flock. It is analogous to the parable about the wheat and the tares. Both the elect and the non-elect coexist together but BOTH groups profess faith in Jesus. This parable is therefore about the Church and not about the world at large.

 

Notice in verse 44 that the goats (i.e., the non-elect) also address Jesus as "Lord." According to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:3, " no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." These goats then are obviously Christian believers who must have faith in him; yet they are damned anyway. Why? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE GOOD WORKS. This is a direct parallel to the teaching of St. James whom everybody admits must have known Matthew's Gospel.

 

There are many more quotes than this but these should suffice to make the point. It is clear that righteousness was credited to people in the Bible on the basis of several different things but never on the basis one thing in isolation from the others. Faith is the ground of justification but it is not the sole basis for it. In the case of Phinehas, he killed a Hebrew man and his Moabite prostitute with one spear thrust and that was credited to him as righteousness. In fact that act saved all of Israel from the wrath of God. I think I have adequately demonstrated from Scripture that there were other things credited to people as righteousness other than faith.

 

Wait a minute! That is a logically fallacious assertion. You cannot defend a proposition solely on the basis that there is no evidence contradicting it. That is like you claiming to have a talisman that wards off the attack of tigers and pointing to the fact that since you have carried the talisman, no tigers have attacked you. If someone tells you that there are no tigers in Phoenix, you will retort "See, it works!"

 

Absence of evidence to the contrary is never sufficient to make a case. There must be some positive evidence to substantiate the claim.

 

I have a challenge for you. You show me someone in Scripture who is considered righteous but who has NO GOOD WORKS and I will concede your point.

 

Now, as to the old "Jewish law" argument, where does the passage I cited say anything about the Jewish law? Please cite where in that passage Paul speaks of ho nomos. He doesn't. He specifically contrasts the one WORKING with the one BELIEVING, and he does so not in the context of DOING THE LAW but in the context of seeking to EARN something. That is what the passage says, Dr. Sippo.

 

A text without a context is a pretext. You have to read the verses in question IN CONTEXT. It is by isolating the verses from their context that you misrepresent what they say. You also need to see the "sitz im leben" of the original Psalm which I also quoted IN FULL. I am afraid you are guilty of proof texting and improper exegetical technique.

 

IN CONTEXT, the point of the quote from Psalm 32 is that a person can be considered righteous who has committed "lawless deeds." It is the lack of following the Law that St. Paul is pointing out.

 

I would also have you notice that there is no mention of FAITH (Greek: pistis)in the verses in question either. Nor is there any mention of FAITH (Hebrew: emunah) in Psalm 32. The theme in Psalm 32 is that repentance from sin followed by confession and a firm purpose of amendment brings about forgiveness. It is not about faith at all except by implication. (After all, why repent, confess, and try to follow God's will unless you had faith that it would be worthwhile to do so?)

 

Sorry. You have misrepresented the passage and given it a false meaning. Whatever else St. Paul and David were talking about, it had nothing to do with any notion of "sola fide."

 

You have provided NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE to substantiate your claim that the believer has the righteousness of Christ imputed to him. Where is your proof?

 

How can the righteousness of Christ be increased? It can't because Christ himself possesses infinite merit. But that is NOT the issue. The question is how can the righteousness of Christ be increased IN the believer. My answer would be (using your terminology) by sanctification. As we participate in the mystery of Christ and his Church we are more deeply immersed in the power of grace. As St. Peter says:

 

Even in the Gospels, we hear:

 

So according to my Lord and Savior there ARE different amounts of faith, but we need very little faith in order to do great things.

 

Also let us not forget the story of the rich young man:

 

Please note that Jesus said that he lacked ONE THING to inherit eternal life: the evangelical counsel of poverty. In the parallel story in Matthew 17, Jesus tells the young man that he would be "perfect" if he did this. It sure sounds to me like there is a gradation of righteousness.

 

Also note that Jesus talks about how we each have a "treasure in heaven" which is based on our good works. He does that a lot in the Gospels (e.g., Matthew 6:20-21, 12:35, 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 6:45, 12:33-34, 18:22). Also we have noted that no one in scripture is ever judged righteous on the basis of faith alone. It is always based on works ( e.g., Matthew 16:27, 25:31ff; Romans 2:6; 2Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:7-9; Revelation 2:23, 20:12, 22:12).

 

As to the question of whether righteousness is INHERENT in the Christian as opposed to imputed "over" him, please note:

 

None of these verse implies that righteousness we are to have is anything but inherently our own (albeit a gift of God to us). They do not talk about "imputation" but rather about how we are to "become the righteousness of God." Also note:

 

It appears from these verses that these JEWS were considered to be righteous by the Holy Spirit who is the true author of Scripture. In particular, we have the case of Zechariah and Elizabeth who were righteous BECAUSE they walked "in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." There is no external imputation of an alien righteousness here. The obvious literal meaning of the text is that they WERE righteous inherently though of course this was a gift given to them by God.

 

It seems to me that the BIBLICAL meaning of righteousness is not he same as yours, James.

 

Correction. Our doctrine IS the biblical doctrine, but it is not the Protestant doctrine. Our view is supported by the work of numerous PROTESTANT scholars over the last 25 years including Krister Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, Glenn Davies, and others. It is also the faith of the Church from the very beginning and represents the views of the Church Fathers (especially St. Augustine) and the great theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas. I am sorry, but you misrepresent the Scriptures and need to repent of this.

 

I am afraid that it is you who appear confused. Let me explain. There are lots of flavors of the Protestant lie. I may not understand your particular flavor but that is not my fault. In the pandemonium that is Protestantism how can anyone talk about what is or isn't a doctrine held by some Protestant sometime or somewhere? It depends upon whom you ask. If you are an alleged apologist for your position then you have a moral obligation to define your terms so that we may discuss these matters intelligently. Claiming that it is in your books is a cop out. For the purposes of this list you should make an effort to explain yourself so that EVERYBODY here will know exactly what it is that you are saying.

 

My understanding of the Reformed position is that regeneration precedes faith and that faith alone is necessary for salvation. As such there is no need for baptism, Eucharist, prayer, good deeds or any other "work" in order to remain a "christian" as long as one continues to believe. As Luther says, "Sin strongly; believe more strongly!" The believer usually produces good works as a result of regeneration but these are merely incidental to "salvation" and contribute nothing to it. You teach that even if the individual does not persevere in good works he will be saved anyway. This was the case with the genocidal monster Oliver Cromwell. On his deathbed he was unrepentant of the horrible atrocities perpetrated on his enemies. He was fearful for his salvation and so he had the Puritan divines gathered to reassure him that if he once had an experience of justification in his youth he could never be lost. Cromwell died unrepentant and unafraid. It appears to me that he died in a state of sinful presumption.

 

So What IS your position? If I have misrepresented it, please tell me what is wrong with my presentation. That is why I am here: to discuss my faith and learn about the faith of others.

 

Then what is the point of disagreement? Everything I have read indicates that from Luther onwards the position of Protestants is that faith alone leads to salvation without the need for any works of any kind (i.e., sacraments, kind deeds, honesty, etc.)and that this alleged Protestant "faith" is composed of assensus (belief), fiducia (trust), and notitia (the basic tenets of the Protestant religion). It specifically excludes Charity (i.e., "willing the good for God's sake") which is what St. Paul (1Cor 13) and the Catholic Church say is necessary. Luther in his commentary on Galatians makes it clear that he and his followers reject the notion that faith must be formed by Charity and thereby reject the opinions of the Scholastics theologians, most notably St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

I have read your silly books and they beg the question. You obviously don't understand Catholic doctrine and refuse to be educated despite my attempts (and those of my friends Bob Fastiggi, Bob Sungenis, Scott Butler, Pat Madrid, Scott Hahn, among others) to correct you. As you remember I tore your book on Justification apart during our debate and showed how you contradicted yourself throughout it. You make the ridiculous statement in your book that Jesus never taught clearly about salvation in the Gospels and so that you claimed that you only needed to go to St. Paul to establish your "doctrine" and you refused to hear any evidence from elsewhere in the NT. When I demonstrated during the debate that Jesus said a lot about salvation that directly contradicted your own views, you refused to even attempt to refute my claims on the grounds that I was "unscholarly."

 

I am less interested in what is "unscholarly" as in what is TRUE. You want to go to the Bible alone to argue about the matter. Fine. I have done that. In this entire response of yours, where have you quoted scripture as part of your argument? Meanwhile I have quoted abundantly from Scripture IN CONTEXT and shown that your views are contrary to the simple meaning of the text. As at our debate, you have not responded to even one challenge that I made in my original posting. I have made more in this one. Will you respond to my challenges now?

 

The problem is James, you take everything the Catholic Church teaches out of context. I knew I left too much room for you to twist and distort the Catholic teaching.

 

Well, it's easy to make that accusation....it's a lot harder to substantiate it. :)

 

Well, it *seems* you are applying that to me----which is fine, I obviously believe it applies to you, but at least when I say that, I do so with some argumentation and documentation, not just my ipse dixit.

 

We are saved by faith, but faith cannot be separated from works as Paul and myself have demonstarted.

 

We are saved by faith, and we do works as a result of the work of Christ in our life, my friend. But that is NOT Rome's position, and if you think it is, I suggest you take a gander at Trent, or the new Catechism.

 

You are quite correct when you say praying doesn't save me, but the cooperation with the grace of Christ makes us grow, mature as sons of God in Christ. Without those works,our faith is dead. James 2:14-17, Philipians 2:12-13.

 

Of course....but in Roman theology, such actions cause you to INCREASE in the grace of justification, so that you can then merit eternal life by your good works done in a state of grace. I never merit eternal life: Christ merits it in my place.

 

Of course I forgot, you do not believe in free will, our free will to turn our backs on God...

 

< chuckle > No, I believe that every person who turns his or her back on God does so as an exercise of his or her will. But that will is not free----it is, as the Lord Jesus taught, a slave to sin (John 8) that needs to be set free by a Redeemer. You see, as Augustine taught, following Paul in the NT, the unredeemed man will ALWAYS turn his back upon God. That's his choice, since his nature is that of an enemy of God (Romans 8:5-9). But when God regenerates one of His elect, their will now receives desires from a new nature, a nature that longs for God and loves God.

 

The Catholic Church does not teach that God stops reaching out to us, but rather he gives us the free will to reject Him. We can turn our backs on Him and His gift: 2 Peter 2:20

 

Yes, I know, and that's why Rome is wrong, and the Bible is right. :-)

 

We are saved by faith, but faith cannot be separated from works as Paul and myself have demonstrated.

 

We are saved by faith, and we do works as a result of the work of Christ in our life, my friend. But that is NOT Rome's position, and if you think it is, I suggest you take a gander at Trent, or the new Catechism.

 

Let's do that. Most Protestants have never actually read what Trent said and if we are going to argue about it, let's show everyone what we are arguing about.

 

START OF QUOTATION:

 

END OF QUOTATION

 

I hope our Protestant friends will note how the work of the Council of Trent is SOAKED in Scripture, constantly referring to it, and trying hard to use the very words of Scripture when possible AS the words of Council. Canon 1 specifically states that, "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." Furthermore it says, "Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own from ourselves, nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated, for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inherence in us, that same is [the justice] of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ." So the merit by which we are saved is not of ourselves but a gift from God through Christ.

 

The extensive biblical citations from the Council of Trent firmly establish that the BIBLICAL understanding of the Christian's standing before Christ is not what Mr. White claims it to be. In particular, White denies what our Lord teaches about His own standards for salvation (See Matthew 25:31ff).

 

Of course I forgot, you do not believe in free will, our free will to turn our backs on God...

 

< chuckle > No, I believe that every person who turns his or her back on God does so as an exercise of his or her will. But that will is not free – it is, as the Lord Jesus taught, a slave to sin (John 8) that needs to be set free by a Redeemer.

 

White seems to find damnation, sin, and his calvinoid doctrine of God's positive reprobation of sinners to be a source of amusement. I think that says a lot about the type of person we are dealing with. He positively takes DELIGHT in contemplating the suffering of the "damned" (i.e., those with whom White disagrees). But that is not the way God sees it:

 

White obviously doesn't know what St. Augustine taught. I would refer interested readers to St. Augustine's short work "On Free Choice of the Will" and his brief reaffirmation of its teaching in his later book "The Retractations." In this treatise St. Augustine demonstrates himself to be THOROUGHLY Catholic in his views. He states first of all that we need an indifferent free will to be SINNERS and that our moral freedom is the source of all evil. He soundly rejects mere spontaneous freedom (which Calvin and Luther embraced) as incompatible with the Scriptures and with human moral responsibility. The reason why St. Augustine condemned this latter view is because if men are not free to make moral choices, then God is the one making those choices for us.

 

Catholicism had maintained the appropriate balance of tension between human moral responsibility and Divine sovereignty; between faith and works; between Scripture and Tradition; between the unity and the trinity in the Godhead; between the divine and human natures in Christ; between the distinctions of nature and grace; and the metaphysical gulf between good & evil. The Protestant apostates arrogantly pursued a reductionistic program where the paradoxical tensions which the Church had safeguarded were reduced to mere "either/or" responses. The mysteries and antinomies of Christian theology became reduced to nothing more than partisan positions among reductionist speculators on all sides.

 

The classical Protestant teaching on the "bondage of the will" makes God the author of sin and is completely incompatible with what the Bible tells us:

 

Throughout Scripture, the human ability to make indifferent choices is assumed:

 

Metaphysical fatalism is NOT a part of the Biblical worldview. It was part of the pagan worldview in ancient Greco-Roman culture which was undergoing an early renaissance at that time. It also came from the mystery religions and Manicheean heresies which were rampant in the Medieval period (See Steven Runciman's book "The Medieval Manichee") and which were the spiritual forerunners of Protestantism. It is not often appreciated that both Luther and Calvin and their minions defended the Medieval Manicheean heretics and condemned the Catholic Church for suppressing them. In fact the negative view of human nature that the classical Protestants read into St. Paul was virtually identical to that in the Manicheean heresies. In many ways the Manicheean heresies were the fertile field in which early Protestant ideas could be made popular among the people of the 16th Century. Fatalism was also part of the Islamic worldview which had infiltrated the West through the universities and the studies of the Humanists who also were Protestant forerunners.

 

... following Paul in the NT, the unredeemed man will ALWAYS turn his back upon God. That's his choice, since his nature is that of an enemy of God (Romans 8:5-9).

 

White quotes this section of Romans inappropriately. St. Paul is talking about the man who resists God's grace. He is a knowing rebel against God's dominion: a villain. We all know people like this. (Some of us WERE people like this.) This is a serial killer or the kind of person who joins the Mafia. This is NOT a valid description of the natural man as God sees him.

 

Contrary to Protestant opinions, the Bible describes the natural man as a tragic figure who is unable by his own efforts to achieve righteousness. The natural man often struggles to be good, but must settle for something less than true righteousness. It is only when he gives up that struggle that such a man becomes "in the flesh" as St. Paul describes him. The reprobate in Romans 8:5-9 is the extreme case of the unredeemed person who is the diametric opposite of the person who is "in the Spirit". This is an exaggerated abstract portrait being used to illustrate a point by comparison. That is why St. Paul is using that description.

 

Not all non-Christians are reprobate monsters and some professed Christians are... well, less than Christian in their behavior. One of the things that Jesus warned us against is judging the state of other people's souls no matter who they are. Was the Good Samaritan redeemed? No, but he was still GOOD. The mystery of how God deals with each individual's soul is not for us to judge.

 

As to the question of human freedom , St. Paul obviously believed in what we would call "Original Sin" but Reformed systematic theology goes way beyond anything St. Paul says. St. Paul acknowledges that all men are sinners before God but he knows nothing about "total depravity." (Another allegedly "biblical" doctrine that is never mentioned in the Bible!) His quotation of Psalms 10:

 

The quotes from Scripture that St. Paul uses are from Psalms 14, 53, 5, & 10. All are referring to evildoers AMONG THE JEWS THEMSELVES. This is clear from the context of the section from which I have quoted above (see especially verses 9 &19). This section is not an indictment of the Gentiles. That was in Romans 1 & 2. This section is dealing specifically with what the Bible itself sad that the JEWS were guilty of themselves. The use of these verse in defense of "total depravity" is therefore unsupported by sound biblical scholarship.

 

I am not denying that all men are sinners, but I do deny that all men are "swift to shed blood, etc." Some are. Some aren't. Each man in his own way contributes to the collective depravity of mankind. In fact our vices tend to support those of other people so that our collective guilt is greater than the mere sum of our individual guilt. The picture is far more complicated than White's caricature.

 

Yes. That is Catholic doctrine.

 

The Catholic Church does not teach that God stops reaching out to us, but rather he gives us the free will to reject Him. We can turn our backs on Him and His gift: 2 Peter 2:20

 

Yes, I know, and that's why Rome is wrong, and the Bible is right. :-)

 

Let us see what the Bible REALLY says:

 

I especially like Hebrews 6:10. It shows that indeed God does appreciate our good works done for his sake and will not overlook them in our salvation.

 

Once again, White proves what St. Jerome says "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."

 

Mr. White, please READ your Bible and accept what it actually says. The WHOLE Bible is inspired. Don't ignore those parts that don't agree with your preconceived notions.