Thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly.
You're welcome. I don't take lightly the task of defending the holy faith. One question I have though is why you are asking these questions on a Reformation forum instead of a Catholic one? Getting two or three responses from different Catholics of different perspectives might serve you better. I try to be as knowledgeable as I can, but I've only been Catholic for 6 years now. Not to shortchange myself, I do have only limited knowledge.
I see you don’t want to judge, but surely when you read such words as “anathema,” this means, “cursed” and therefore “damned.” The serious problem I have with this is that it is a pronouncement of man. A few more observations:
1) Did you read my interpretation of Matt 25? I believe James uses the word justify in that sense, not in the sense Paul uses it. As Luther said, “We are saved by faith alone but not by faith that is alone.” See below.
Which is why I made the point that "faith alone" is something Luther made up and isn't found in Scripture except to refute that concept. Luther's addition of the word "alone" in the vernacular translation was precisely the defiant vandelism of Scripture that gave cause for the need to obtain an imprimatur from the bishop before copying the Bible. It's hard to see Luther as the least bit credible when he attempted to remove any Scripture that confounded his theology. With that said, however, Luther would heartily contend with your notion that baptism is unnecessary: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).
2) You emphasise baptised “for the forgiveness of sins.” Now what do you make of this passage: “Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.” (Acts 8:13) A few moments later, Peter says, “Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:23) He was still unregenerate (in bonds!) and unforgiven, even after his baptism.
I believe it to be a mistake to use the Bible as lawyers use the law, trying to exude from it what assists their point of view. Now here we have Peter saying clearly that one must be baptized for the remission of sins. Lest there be any misunderstanding, Paul also says, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," (Acts 22:16). Not wanting to believe what the text is clearly saying, it seems you are scraping for something to contradict it with. The challenge of any Christian is to allow the Bible to shape our beliefs and resist the temptation to bend it to fit our predetermined conclusions.
3) Baptise in Acts always follows salvation. From Acts 2, “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.” The jailer and Eunuch were already regenerated/born again/saved/ forgiven/justified before their baptism … read the passage in context.
Here again I think you miss the larger point. Whether it be the Philipian jailer and his family, the Ethiopian Enuch, or the new disciples Paul encounted in Ephesus, all were water baptized as an initiation into the Church. The burden of proof really lies on you to demonstrate that this step could be bypassed and such a practice of opting out of baptism was accepted and taught.
4) Baptism in the NT does not always refer to water. E.g. Jesus, “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!” and Peter, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” In fact, this type saving baptism is spiritual, and is with the Holy Spirit and fire, not water.
It's unseeming to suggest that Peter was flatly contradicting what he said to the crowd gathered at Pentacost. The baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism do not exclude one another, nor is baptism in the Holy Spirit a substitute for water baptism as aforementioned was a hard requirement to enter the Church.
5) Christ was baptised for a totally different purpose. It was to “fulfil all righteousness” on our behalf.
If we are following Christ who set for us an example by being baptized, how much more unthinkable to suggest that baptism was done away with. No, Jesus did not need baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but it was at His baptism that He received the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. His teachings on baptism for the forgiveness of sins became very evident in the teachings of the Apostles who taught what they heard from Him.
Do you refer to Hypercalvinism? True Calvinism in no way precludes the responsibility of man, but vehemently promotes it. Yet, let me add that an unconverted person is dead (Eph 2). A dead man has no free will.
I'm well familiar with TULIP Calvinism and have never heard it referred to as hypercalvinism. Yes, men are held responsible, but that's not what I said, is it? I said that Calvinism excludes the participation and free will of man. Men are either predestined, therefore infallibly saved, or they are reprobate, having no chance at salvation. Calvinism tries to make the case that although these fates are set, men still freely choose. This confounds all logic!
I must confess I am still confused. This links to what you also said above. What do you mean by “saving faith,” when you believe salvation is a process? If a man believes in Christ unto eternal life, then he is SAVED … finished. “…whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (Jn 5:24) There is a definite transition. Now, yes, he must persevere, he must work, he evidence that he is saved. But his work does not in slightest contribute to his salvation. But unless it is God who is faithful, who will “keep you unto the end,” we would certainly fall away.
Dismas (the thief on the cross) had saving faith. He confessed Jesus and believed and was assured of eternal life because of his belief. The term "saving faith" is the initial faith that one has in Christ and has no bearing on the controversy of whether someone in that moment is eternally locked in to salvation. The elimination of man's freewill decision to pursue salvation until the end, being "faithful until death" does not add to God's glory, as the Calvinist might claim, but rather diminishes it by creating automons with the illusion of free will. The very fact that God can woo us into following Him freely for the rest of our lives, though we are equally free to relent, only establishes to the utmost his worthiness to be praised by all creation.
[quote=via_dolorosa]
It's apart from the grace of God that our works are meaningless.
Lk 17
7 And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down to eat’?
8 But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’?
9 Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not.
10 So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’”
The fact that we are "unprofitable servants" ought to be of the greatest comfort to us for it alludes to the grace by which we're saved. We work because we do "what is our duty to do". It is the obligation that we owe after such a perfect work has been done for us. Should the person who does good works in hope of salvation be afraid? No. Rather it is the person who receives such a wonderful gift and does nothing with it (think of the parable of the talents) that ought to fear for the perdition of their soul.
AMEN to this! But (forgive me if I misinterpret you) why then must we do this and that, before God will give us grace? Let me use a specific example. A man is dying on his sick bed, unconscious. The priest hastily sprinkles him with water, and through this work, supposedly communicates grace to him. Yet the man need not even have FAITH! He need not REPENT! This is surely no manifestation of fruit, but “devout observation of the law works”, and totally contradicts a host of Scriptures. “Repent and believe in the gospel”. Thus my question as to what you believe saving faith is??
I'm sure it befuddles many Protestants when the paralized man was lowered to Jesus through the roof and Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven." While it cannot be stressed enough that those who hear the gospel have a duty to embrace it to be saved, it must also be said that God's saving grace works inside and outside of our mental faculties. Jesus told His disciples, "you are clean because of the word I have spoken to you," a pronouncement of absolution again that was not solicited. Protestant and Evangelical theology hinges all of salvation on a person's mental assent to the gospel, but it's a great comfort to that our minds, subject to weakness, is not the only vehicle to salvation. How is a child saved? How is an ungospelled person saved? How about the profoundly retarded or autistic? Of this you can be sure, God will save whom he will outside of the tidy little formulas that people have made for Him.
Here again is the mistake of pitting one article of salvation against another. One problem with evangelicals is that they like nice, tidy formulas based on just one thing Scripture has to say on the topic of salvation and hinge it all on that passage. Scripture has much to say on the topic of salvation and being born again is just one. Scripture also speaks of baptism, faithful endurance, works (bearing fruit), confession, the indwelling of the Spirit (parable of the foolish virgins) and vigilance.....tying each of these irrevokably to one's eternal fate.
The paradigm shift I experienced in becoming Catholic is one from the either/or of Protestantism to the both/and of Catholicism. This is a core shift that changes the dynamic of many topics we disagree on. For instance, the manner in which Mary is honored does not intrude upon the glory of God any more than the king honoring Mordecai, Esther's uncle, in any way subtracted from the king's glory and dominion. Once this shift occurred for me, it was simply a matter of training my mind to no longer think of the wares of salvation or the economy of heaven as a zero sum game.
Actually God promised precisely this: "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come." (Jn 16:13) Jesus also breathed on the apostles saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit" which was consumated on the day of Pentacost when the Spirit descended upon them in the form of flames. It's actually far more difficult to demonstrate that Jesus intended the Church to be governed by a book since Scripture seems to indicate strongly that it is the Holy Spirit that would lead the church. The Apostles consulted no scripture when they eliminated circumcision or changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Even the Bible itself which would come about in the 4th century was a product of the authority of the Church. It's not that Scripture stands (or does not stand) on equal ground with tradition, it's that the Scripture is part of the entire revelation of God through the holy Church. Paul makes reference to this in calling the Church the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1Tim 3:15). It was by this authority, passed directly from Christ to the apostles, that the canon was made official. It's truly a queer notion that Luther came up with that makes a master out of the servant and servant out of the master.
Oh sorry! I made a serious typo here. I meant to say, God never promised the subsequent infallible transmission of TRADITION through the centuies. But yes, the Word is timelessly infallible. I don't believe 1 Tim 3:15 refers to tradition within the church. Notice the words, the “pillar” and “foundation” of the truth, not the truth itself, notr the transmitter of truth. It supports the truth by upholding the Word.
Timothy was referring to the oral tradition people were given. The oral tradition started with Christ who, not writing his teachings down in a book, promised "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you," (Jn 14:26). So the Apostles were sent to "teach the nations". The oral tradition was passed on through a process called Apostolic Succession the first example of which can be found in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Not seen in the early church is the practice or expectation of conforming all teachings to a book. So when we say, "the Word of God" we are speaking of the full revelation of God through the Church, the highest source of authority, having been commissioned by Christ himself. This is why Augustine once remarked that he would not even believe in the gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church; this coming from a man contemporary to the canonical councils.
