My experience too.

It is my experience that this tormented striving for reconciliation, for the "agape" life, for forgiveness, and so forth, in the face of our obvious inadequacy, and even our secret longing for something quite different from the blessed life, can only be resolved by the the invasion of our inner being by the Holy Spirit. It is only the Holy Spirit who can do this work of salvation. In that, the Protestants are quite correct: we are powerless on our own. If we do as Luther recommends and surrender ourselves (and surrender, it should be remembered, is quite different from striving) then the Spirit will have the opening to effect an invasion. There will be many battles after the initial beachhead is established, but the war is the Spirit's to win. And, of course, this process is quite possible for Protestants and Catholics alike.

While i concur with much of what Mulder says, i believe he has missed the mark on at least one point here. To suggest that the "Sinner/Saint" paradox in Luther's thought is either a Sinner looking like a Saint or a Saint looking like a Sinner is simply not reading Luther accurately. The Christian is wholly the redeemed, baptized, beloved child of God. Easter does not proclaim only a future reality but a current reality as well. It is true of me because, as John says, "God abides in me." (Note the present tense.) At the same time, i am also cognizant of the fellow whom i see reflected in the mirror of God's commandments. That is me as well, and it is also who i am. Herein lies a great mystery. If i would say that i am a sinner masquerading as a saint i really deny the work of Christ in my Baptism and in the many times he has absolved me in absolution and entered me through the Sacrament of the Altar. On the other hand, if would say that i really am a saint who only looks like a sinner, i, in the words of John again, "make God out to be a liar, and the Truth is not in me."

What i really appreciate about your essay, however, is that you get the sacrament of penance right: it is the place where Christ meets me "just as I am." That "I am" includes a human being who is, of himself, utterly opposed to God. But i praise him that in meeting me through efficacious words of grace and promise he does not leave me in that place, just as I am, but the good work he has begun in Baptism he continues to work until the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

First Things' articles on comparing Catholic and other Christian families, as best as I recall, go the way of this one. The Catholic view is superior. I have wondered if this is an editorial policy or just because the Catholic contributors are more numerous. Is there much to me gained by such individualistic comparisons as this? Many of us in other Christian churches acknowledge the whole business of Christian disunity is lamentable. I hope First Things can get a better approach to the great conversation on Christian unity that needs to begin.

Turn to the Lord (Hos 14:2)
Turn thou me, and I shall be turned (Jer 31:18)

Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. (Ez 18:31)
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; (Ez 36:26)

As Pascal explains, “The only way of reconciling these apparent contrarieties, which ascribe our good actions at one time to God and at another time to ourselves, is to keep in view the distinction, as stated by St. Augustine, that "our actions are ours in respect of the free will which produces them; but that they are also of God, in respect of His grace which enables our free will to produce them"; and that, as the same writer elsewhere remarks, "God enables us to do what is pleasing in his sight, by making us will to do even what we might have been unwilling to do."”

God's going to do what God's going to do and it is futile for me to guess what that will be. All I can do is the best I can from here on out and trust God for the rest. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the Name of the Lord.

As an LCMS Lutheran thus post puzzles me. Do you think the view of the Lord's Supper presented here is incompatible with Lutheran theology? I certainly don't.

Mr. Mulder has apparently never stood on either of the two mountaintop vistas in the book of Romans:

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit."

--Romans 3:21-26 and 8:1-4 (NIV1984)

Through the word "now", Paul brings both justification through Jesus and his realization of freedom from sin into the present moment for declaration and celebration. Today might say, "Finally! At last!" Indeed, Martin Luther King Jr.'s ringing phrase, "Free at last" was not that sentiment's first step on the continent iof sinful humanity.

Of course, one does not appreciate the view unless one struggles through the hopelessness of human effort in overcoming sin in Romans chapters 1 - 3 and chapter 7. Whatever the Catholic rite of penance is today, it most surely was justification by law in the mind of Martin Luther, and to me it seems more than likely that many Catholics are in the same boat, bailing out at 10 gallons per minute while the leak is at 15.

Romans, Galatians and Hebrews all testify in the court of God's Law that Christians obey not to be forgiven, but because they have been forgiven. That is what each of these three authors mean when they write, "The just shall live by faith." Getting back to these Scriptures can do nothing but help this conversation.

On these two glorious mountain peaks, I find both Paul the Apostle's and Martin Luther's initials, each carved double size.

Jack,
I don’t see as much a conflict here as you seem to write. We are at the same time sinner saint, always with plural, ever adulterated motives. The Lutheran affirmation, which is not un-catholic, is that my peace with God is not denied me because of my contradictions. A works righteous view is a tight rope walked always in fear and suspense; in the Sacraments (be they described as Lutheran or Catholic) we are walking that tight rope with a net. Consequently, we can focus on the work at hand (loving God and my neighbor, crafting my character) without the paralyzing existential drama, we leave that to Christ.
Am I misunderstanding your point?

Within the Eastern Catholic Churches we tend to view sin as a illness from which we must be cured, rather than a crime for whose guilt we must atone. The Sacrament of Reconciliation, therefore, has two aims--first, reintegrating us into the Body of Christ, and second prophylaxis against the recurrence of sin. We speak not of "repentance" but of "metanoia", a change of heart, or conversion, and whatever course of prayer, fasting, almsgiving or whatever we are given by our confessor is viewed principally as "spiritual medicine", rather than as a punishment for the expiation of our sin.

A lot of people who are resistant to the traditional view of confession--including many Evangelical Protestants--are quite receptive to the therapeutic approach in our Tradition.

Not sure I get this post. I know Catholics who think through their faith think it is superior to the Protestant variety, and I know plenty of Protestants who think the exact same thing about their faith, like I do. But we have way more in common then we have differences. (I'm reading an interesting book now about the American Revolution, and how much anti-Catholic bigotry was a motivation for it--just think, my Catholic friends, without the Reformation, there would be no America!) Although I don't go into a confessional and confess to a priest, Christ meets me too in his Church, just as I am. I am convinced that in eternity, God will be far more concerned with the Greatest Commandment than with our theology.

Repentent Sinner: How can I get my sins forgiven?
Holy Spirit: Go ask Jesus for forgiveness.
RS: Where can I meet Jesus?
HS: In the confessional.
RS: But I'm Protestant!
HS: You asked.
RS: Hmph! I'll tell you what, you go ask Jesus to forgive my sins for me.
HS: Fine...have it your way...Just remember, it was 'your way' that got you in this mess in the first place.

For those who believe Christ kept His promise to send the Holy Spirit to the Church to lead it to "all truth," the answer to such questions is to be found in the writings of the Church Fathers. Where they seem to be unanimous on a subject, that is the result of the promised work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. There is no other way, that I know of, to resolve these issues.

I should have added to my previous post, that where the writings of the Church Fathers are not explicit on a subject, the actual, consistent belief and practice of the Church over the centuries as far back as we can learn of it, one must assume springs from and bears witness to their unanimity.

Rick writes of the Christian sacramental life,

a "tormented striving for reconciliation" And later, "the Protestants are quite correct: we are powerless on our own"

never quite grasping the Protestant ethos is in fact one which is often based on doctrines of "Alone-ness" or self-determination.

Perhaps a closer study of the sacramental life might just reveal to persons such as Rick that God's grace is made present incrementally in the lives of those who continue to participate sacramentally. For those who do not participate, including that portion of lower church, fundamentalist/evangelical Protestants the question remains,

How exactly DID I received the grace I so long ago claimed as a birth right from one moment of conversion during a life time of conversion?


"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith."
St. Paul

Far too complex an explanation for a sacrament as beautiful and as simple as confession. I sin, I'm sorrowful, I confess and do penance, I'm forgiven and I leave with hope, a clean soul, and with the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

Harry (and others)

I have read here an almost complete misunderstanding of the entire matter of Luther (about which Rome has yet to come clean) and a sort of subtle intent to use tradition and the Church Fathers over against clear Scripture.

Mulder either chooses to ignore the rest of the "Luther" event, or is simply ignorant of it, the Lutheran Confessions, Confession and Absolution, plus the entire relationship between Law, Gospel, conversion, justification (objective and subjective) and sanctification. If I get into the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, this would become a very long post!

His is an emotional reaction. All well and good, I suppose, for him. But it hardly squares with either history, the facts, OR the Church Fathers. Luther very successfully employed the words of the Church Fathers over against Rome, as do the Greek Orthodox, and it is Lutherans that have maintained an ongoing dialogue with the Eastern Church to draw those the catholic (small "c") tradition more toward one another.

Rome just insists it is right. Not quite . . .

BTW -

You don't have a listing for personal sites.

I addressed this further before my post here.

If interested in continuing the debated . . .

http://koivwvia.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/is-there-a-ubiquitous-script-out-there/

Hello, jb,

The dismemberment of the Body of Christ on Earth, I think most Christians would agree, has been disastrous in terms of our ability to evangelize the world. A handful of people in the beginning, who were devoted "to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer," by the grace of God, eventually grew into a movement that converted the known world. Today, over a billion of us can't seem to finish the job, and in fact, to a large extent, have been evangelized by the world instead such that the Christians don't exactly stand out as a distinct people – a people set apart – in most communities anymore. Surveys keep revealing that more and more Christians think pretty much like the world, especially in gravely serious matters like the meaning and value of life itself and the purpose of human sexuality. The world is converting us, not the reverse.

A body whose hands and feet all have a will of their own, and obviously are not all in submission to its head, will appear as a fool to the world and will not be taken seriously.

So, how do we begin the genuine restoration of the unity of the Body of Christ on Earth? I mean a proposal other than "Let's all become a [ insert your own denomination here ]." Obviously we must start with things any serious Christian will agree with, and proceed from there. For example:

1) Christ promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Church and promised that the Holy Spirit and Himself would remain with it forever, leading it to "all truth." He promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

2) If Christ kept that promise, there must be some consistent belief and practice that has been preserved in some Earthly institution from the very beginning. If this isn't the case then Christ didn't keep His promise.


3) Besides biblical texts, we have many writings of those who were taught by the apostles and those who were taught by those who were taught by the apostles and so on. These writings reveal much about the belief and practice of the Early Church and their understanding of the meaning of the Scriptures.

4) We are ALL – Catholic and Protestant alike – going to have to be willing to adjust our thinking to some extent where it is not in accord with what we find was the unanimous belief of the Fathers. This will be especially true where modern Scripture Scholarship – Catholic and Protestant alike – is in stark contrast to the unanimous belief of the Church Fathers.

Christians of every denomination, even where technically speaking the official teaching of their denomination is in accord with the unanimous belief of the Church Fathers, will have to adjust their thinking considerably in some areas, as it is not exactly a rarity that the convictions one lives by for all practical purposes are not in accord with the official teaching of one's denomination. Everybody – Protestant and Catholic alike – would be challenged by such an exercise.

How can any serious Christian, knowing how disastrous the current situation is, and knowing of Christ's ardent prayer for our unity, not be seriously looking for some way to begin to restore that unity? Being content with the way things are is inexplicable to me. I just don't understand that. The profound, earthshaking, positive results of the restoration of Christian unity in terms of winning the world for Christ are worth industriously working for. It looks more and more like the failure to begin that project will eventually result in an ineffectual remnant that is only taken seriously by itself.

To my Reformed Protestant ears, it seems that Mr. Mulder's theology of confession as expressed here is not really incompatible with (some) Protestant views of justification, especially those of Luther to which he refers.

The question to my mind is to what extent his personal views expressed here comport with the official Roman Catholic teaching on confession - and especially, with the official views of the Roman Catholic Church in Luther's time.

Perhaps Mr. Mulder remains more Protestant in his outlook than he realizes.

Or perhaps the clash is not as strong between the present-day Roman Catholic view and the Lutheran view as it was between the early 16th century Roman Catholic view and the contemporaneous Lutheran view.

Mike D'Virgilio writes:

"just think, my Catholic friends, without the Reformation, there would be no America!) "

Huh?? America was discovered by a Catholic European 25 years before the Reformation. And the US was settled by Catholic Europeans long before the English ever got to doing it (see history of St. Augustine, Florida, Santa Fe and New Mexico).

jb writes:

"I have read here an almost complete misunderstanding of the entire matter of Luther (about which Rome has yet to come clean) and a sort of subtle intent to use tradition and the Church Fathers over against clear Scripture.

Mulder either chooses to ignore the rest of the "Luther" event, or is simply ignorant of it, the Lutheran Confessions, Confession and Absolution, plus the entire relationship between Law, Gospel, conversion, justification (objective and subjective) and sanctification."

So Church Tradition has no place in the Church unless it is Luther's Tradition? The problem with that and the appeal to Scripture alone is that neither Luther nor his 16th Century Church is mentioned anywhere in Scripture.

The Church founded in the First Century AD (the Catholic Church from which Luther broke away), by contrast, is the subject of all the books of the New Testament other than the Gospels. And the passage of 2 Tim. 1:5-6 and 12-14 as an example, shows that Paul had been passing on that Church's Tradition s normative before he ever wrote a single word of that epistle.

Dean from Ohio writes:

"Romans, Galatians and Hebrews all testify in the court of God's Law that Christians obey not to be forgiven, but because they have been forgiven. That is what each of these three authors mean when they write, "The just shall live by faith.""

Except for those christians who do not obey, and they are legion.

In all events, one thing the Protestant commentors above haven't referenced is the clearest statement on justification in the entire New Testament! That is, of course, James 2:24 (NIV): "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. " (In the NRSV: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone").

I know that Luther tried to dodge that clear refutation of his principle of Sola Fide by trying to toss out all of James as an "epistle of straw," but we are beyond that now and most Protestants admit James is as canonical as Romans. So, if it is not Sola Fide as Luther claimed, isn't it time "to call the whole thing off?"

Harry -

Nice response. No . . .

I take that back . . .

That was a fabulous response. FirstThings ought to publish that as a challenge to us ALL!

You ask the right questions. And they are the questions the Church universal must face and answer first to Itself! Excellent closing sentence!

This is a bit anecdotal, but I think it, at least, draws a bit of a map to what you are trying to say . . . I DO get your point . . .

Father McCarthy - who was my RCC priest, and would have "across the discussion table" confession and absolution with me in my junior and senior years of high school (and as most of us will admit, those are tough years) was a priceless soul and a credit to Christ's Holy Ministry. He understood the distinction between the Law, which accuses us of our sin, and the Gospel, which is the fullness of Jesus in His forgiveness delivered in the Word and Sacraments. At an age when many young men fall from faith, that Ole Son wouldn't let that happen to me.

Father Joseph - Houston area Orthodox priest - intelligent beyond measure in many ways. Several books and several discussions - A good soul as was Father McCarthy. He hates the separation.

Father Patrick - perhaps my absolute best friend in the Holy Ministry - ordained LCMS in 1990, drifted eastward toward Constantinople, but will be installed via "Canterbury" in a few weeks.

And me . . . the fool for Christ, ordained LCMS in 1986, with a pedigree that drifted from RCC to hardcore Calvinism (thank you, Lord for my deliverance from that!) to the LCMS.

There's the context, so to speak . . .

Father Patrick - (a very smart man - you can google him and get some stuff he has written - my name might even show up) and I discuss this by the week. The state of the world, the nature of sin, and the need for the catholic () Church to draw together, rather than apart, has never been greater than it is in our age. We are facing challenges far beyond our differences, in a world that has, simply put, completely lost its moorings.

And we both agree with you wholeheartedly - it is now that the Body of Christ SOLVE their differences and draw together to present the Gospel to all the world.

And Harry, if I might add (as emphasis) those of us who truly hold to Christ and what the living God in the flesh was truly all about - do believe in these very words you keyed:

"The profound, earthshaking, positive results of the restoration of Christian unity in terms of winning the world for Christ are worth industriously working for."

You have absolutely no disagreement with me on that count. We need to be doing some serious chatting among ourselves as to what Matthew 28:19-20 really means.

Pax Christi to you and yours,

My Flock calls me - pb

Jeff

harry,

I appreciate your passion for unity of the body of Christ. We need to pursue it, and why not?

It will take a major movement of the Holy Spirit across the globe, and probably some suffering. And the prayers of the saints (us).

Dean

Harry -

Either the editor here is behind the curve, or I botched delivery of what I originally wrote.

In either case, I agree with you more than you know. I do not know what the mechanism is that will permit what we both desire to come about among us catholics - the Orthos, the RCC, Anglicans, and us Lu-therns (almost no one spells it right) :-) . . .

But we really ought to be about the task anyway. Pax

Patrick,

Thank you for your comment.

The hermeneutical principle I was taught, and which I still embrace, is Literal, Historical, Grammatical, Contextual. Literal unless something else is obviously called for; the historical situation is part of the interpretation, followed only afterwards by application to my situation; grammar matters (e.g., "seed, not seeds"), and context, of the chapter, book and entire Bible. I also interpret the Old Testament the same way that Jesus did (there was a real Jonah inside a real marine creature, for instance). I give New and Old Testament Scriptures the same primacy that Jesus gave the Scriptures of his day--over tradition where there is a conflict as did Jesus (I'm not trying to restart this argument, but these points are relevant here so I mention them).

I agree that James is canonical, authoritative and inerrant in the original autographs. Just like Romans, Galatians and Hebrews.

So what we have with Romans and James, in my view, is a shortcoming in our understanding. Since the scripture cannot be broken and it does not contradict itself when understood properly, there must be a way that it fits. I understand the James-Romans contradiction to be like a 2-part ticket. The first part of the ticket is the one that gains me admission; the second part is what proves the first part to be genuine. It has no value in gaining me admission, but the first part will not be accepted without the second. I grant that this understanding is not stated explicitly in the text.

Embracing James as you do seems to reduce Romans, Galatians and Hebrews to your own "right strawey epistles" since they explicitly say that justification is by faith apart from works, as in Romans 4:5. Throw Titus 3:5 in there too. We can't reject either side; we have to try, with the Holy Spirit's help, to harmonize them.

In the same way, the Bible teaches both the free will of men to accept or reject Jesus, and also God's choice of the elect from before the world began. I believe both are true, but I cannot reconcile them. The best (imperfect) illustration I've heard is that salvation is a bridge with a sign over it. As one approaches the bridge, one sees "Whosoever will may come." After crossing, one turns around and sees, "The elect from the foundation of the world." The Trinity is like this too. These topics are like mathematical singularities; our regular rules of arithmetic no longer apply. But then, if I could understand everything about God, then I would be God. And that's not going to happen, thank goodness!

Consider that three of the great doctrinal books of the New Testament contain the OT quotation, "The just shall live by faith." Throwing those out on the basis of James is not, in my judgment, either wise or faithful.

In response to my showing that the Protestant dogma of Sola Fide contradicts the clearest teaching in the NT on justification (James 2:24), Ohio Dean writes:

"Embracing James as you do seems to reduce Romans, Galatians and Hebrews to your own "right strawey epistles" since they explicitly say that justification is by faith apart from works, as in Romans 4:5. Throw Titus 3:5 in there too. We can't reject either side; we have to try, with the Holy Spirit's help, to harmonize them.

In the same way, the Bible teaches both the free will of men to accept or reject Jesus, and also God's choice of the elect from before the world began. I believe both are true, but I cannot reconcile them...."

In fact, James himself had reconciled Romans 4 (on Abraham's faith) in the very passage already referenced:

"Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God..... Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead. "

Sola fide means "faith without works" (literally: "Faith Alone"). It was a silly basis on which to divide the only Church Christ ever made (and in the First Century as the Bible His Church completed attests). People need to give it up and just admit Luther was wrong.

Hi, Dean, Patrick,

Here are my two cents worth. ;o)

Christ's description of the Last Judgment in Matthew 25 makes it clear that sins of omission -- a failure to do good works -- can be deadly sins:



"Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. ..."



One's good works certainly can never create a situation where God “owes” one heaven, but a failure to care for Christ in His least brethren (failing to do good works) can cause one to lose it. So, at least in this sense, good works are necessary for salvation, unlike the “works of the law,” the inefficacy of which St. Paul speaks.


Hebrews 6 makes it clear that the saved can become "unsaved." This is caused by serious sin, whether that is sins of commission, or sins of omission (like those Christ mentions in Mt. 25):


It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
Heb 6:4-8



While Hebrews 6 makes clear we can lose our salvation after we obtain it, it is not saying that if we fall into serious sin after we are saved all is lost. The only unforgivable sin is that of persisting in unrepentance of serious sin, which is indeed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; if we die in such a state we are lost.

Genesis 15:6 "And Abram believed the Lord and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." I guess belief does carry a lot of credit with God. I just wish these holier than thou essays would stop. There is no worse church than the church of the holier than thou.

Patrick -

Perhaps you are not aware of this, but those of the Orthodox faith would contend strongly that they are the "original" Church, as I would contend that Orthodox Lutherans (confessional) are the true extension of the "Catholic Church." Trent tried to squash that, and failed miserably.

What I wrote regarding Luther was, as is everything else I say and preach, based first upon Holy Writ, and then, upon the understanding of such which is clearly out there for all to read in the Book of Concord. Luther nor we dismiss the Church Fathers - but rather - celebrate them, and the saints and the faithfully departed. Pick up the LCMS hymnal and you would quickly realize that!

You dismiss, by your words, a whole bundle of theology of which you truly should be aware. It is clear you have never made an intellectual and spiritual comparison (especially given the abuse within the Church at his time), so you really can't say much in any definitive way. Just the old shibboleth "Luther broke away."

No, he did not. He, as much as the Church Fathers, preserved what was truly right, meet and salutary.

@harry - "While Hebrews 6 makes clear we can lose our salvation after we obtain it, it is not saying that if we fall into serious sin after we are saved all is lost. The only unforgivable sin is that of persisting in unrepentance of serious sin, which is indeed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; if we die in such a state we are lost."

Thanks for your reply.

I understand Heb 6 to be those who were never saved in the first place. They had received all the enlightenment from God that they could receive, and they rejected it. So, once saved, always saved. And in that case, once enlightened and having rejected to unbelief, always damned. I'm so glad that we never know when a person passes that point, and that God's mercy is greater than we can comprehend. But I know that point exists, because the Bible tells me so.

I also disagree with your statement I've quoted above. If you believe one can lose his salvation, then Heb 6 is saying exactly that it cannot be regained, since God has given them all the revelation they are able to receive. And their sin, the context makes plain, was not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but unbelief. The writer of Hebrews is saying that some among their group are still unbelievers, and that someday those people will be hardened by their unbelief to a point of no return. That is why the author proceeds to quote Ps. 95: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...So God swore to them with upraised hand, 'They shall never enter my rest.'"

Similarly, it was a failure to know Jesus in Matt 25 that will damn those on Jesus' left. Their obliviousness to the need for good works was prima facie evidence not of a deadly sin, but of a failure to be in a relationship with Jesus, a failure of believing, the only deadly sin that still exists. I see the primary fulfillment of this passage as the reactions of those who, during the future holocaust of the Tribulation, shelter or do not shelter Jews (the least of Jesus' brothers) on pain of death. But the principle--taking a risk, however great, to show the love of God--applies even today. As the writer of Hebrews goes on to state, Jesus' sacrifice was for all time.

My assurance of salvation verse is John 6:37: "All that the Father gives me shall come to me, and those who come to me I will never drive away." Jack Mulder may be Catholic because he is a sinner, but I am Protestant because I am forgiven. Forever. And once forgiven, how can we who are dead to sin live any longer in it?! (Romans 6).

Once I realized this, I was finally able to fulfill Hebrews 6:1-3:

"Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so."

Once I realized that I was in God's family come hell or high water (aka Ps 66) I was able to grow in my faith and press forward to maturity. I was no longer locked in the endless cycle of immaturity, trying again and again to ensure I was saved. I was able to turn my attention to the word and to pleasing God. I worked out the consequences of my choice to become his bondservant forever (Exodus 21).

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. God bless!

Dean writes of Faith and Works, "a 2-part ticket"

he suggests in considering Romans with James there is a,... "a shortcoming in our understanding. Since the scripture cannot be broken and it does not contradict itself when understood properly, there must be a way that it fits"

And there is but before shining light on that I would like to answer a resounding NO to Dean's presupposition of,

"Embracing James as you do seems to reduce Romans, Galatians and Hebrews to your own "right strawey epistles" since they explicitly say that justification is by faith apart from works, as in Romans 4:5."

THE Key - both the writer of Romans and James are speaking on the same Faith yet also focus on different types of Works.

St. Paul in Romans contrasts Faith with Works of the Law . He suggests an incompatibility. Yet elsewhere in Paul's writing we find he has no issue with Good Works as being within God's plan of justification.

James specifically writes on the unity of Faith and Good Works (or works of charity, as understood in First Christianity) as an act of justification.

Perhaps once you rethink things, you'll be able to hand over to Peter on entrance to heaven something more than half a ticket for stamping I sincerely hope you'll examine what I have just illuminated and give things a think.

Hi, Dean,

Thanks for your kind reply.

“I understand Heb 6 to be those who were never saved in the first place.”

St. Jereome, in his “Against Jovinianus,” says of this passage in Hebrews 6:

“Surely we cannot deny that they have been baptized who have been illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God. But if the baptized cannot sin, how is it now that the Apostle says, 'And have fallen away'?”

Jerome sees these as people who have been saved by baptism and then fallen away. There is no second baptism for them – that is what Hebrews 6:4-8 is saying. But there is repentance to restore them again to grace. That is why they are “in danger of being cursed.” Not cursed yet, but in danger of it if they persist in unrepentance. This must be the case as John tells us:

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
1 John 1:8

Those who are saved continue to sin. If we think not, “we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”


“He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.”
Mt 12:30-32

What is speaking against the Holy Ghost? What speaks more viciously against the Holy Ghost than driving Him out of His temple by our sin (we are temples of the Holy Ghost when we have been saved by baptism) and then by unrepentance refusing to allow Him to re-enter? Only those who have been saved by baptism have the Holy Ghost within them in the first place. As long as we remain in a state of serious sin, refusing to repent and refusing to confess our sins as John tells us we must, we cannot be forgiven in this world or in the world to come. This is because to refuse to repent is to reject forgiveness. We must repent and confess our sins to those to whom Christ said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

Harry,

Thanks for your gracious reply also. I appreciate your citation of Jerome; it bears careful listening, and he is not alone in his view.

The description of the initial state of these people has puzzled many, including me. How could someone who experienced all those things be unsaved in the first place?

I don't have a pat answer for this, but I still think the weight comes down on that side. The context of Hebrews (it's a good read at one sitting) is that people who are very close to redemption can still miss it. The five warning passages in Hebrews return to this theme over and over, and the missing ingredient is unbelief (or, perhaps more accurately, disbelief, since it is a moral and spiritual choice here). Belief, not water baptism, makes a Christian as I read the NT, so unbelief makes a non-Christian.

I look at it this way: A person approaches the door of a house. He or she steps onto the porch, looks in the windows, smells dinner cooking, hears pleasant conversation and laughter, pets the dog, sees the family within and realizes that this is the right address and is assured of a warm welcome. This is the one place in the world where he can go. He knows that he belongs here, and they "have to" take him in, in the words of the poet. But then despite all that, he closes his heart, turns around, and steps off the porch. And it is night. Like Judas.

God is saying, I believe, that there is a last time to do this for everyone. We don't know when it is, but we ought to be doubly careful it does not happen to us. There is nothing more that God can show us that can change our minds and hearts.

As to God's ready forgiveness for our sins, Amen! We do need to have our feet washed, daily, by God and by each other, but our bath has already happened and we are clean. Except for those who, like Judas, disbelieved and never were saved in the first place.

Best to you!

Mike D'Virgilio writes:

"just think, my Catholic friends, without the Reformation, there would be no America!"

One can raze a Cathedral and erect a tool shed. It may be a a pretty fine tool shed but he should temper his pride for the Cathedral had a wonderful anteroom for the same tools.

Below is Vincent of Lerins' view of scripture. He was a fifth century monk:

"Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.”

As you know, those he lists are those who had fallen into error based on their interpretation of the Scriptures.

Vincent goes on to say:

"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

Vincent's thought was dogmatically reiterated by the Council of Trent roughly a thousand years later:

“… no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even **contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers** …”
This was again dogmatically declared at Vatican Council I, and asserted again in Leo XIII’s encyclical *Providentissimus Deus*.

The idea is that if Christ has kept His promises that He and the Holy Spirit would be with the Church always and forever, and that the Holy Spirit would guide it to the truth, then we should be able to look back at the results of that promised guidance, and know how to go forward. If we no longer look at that, any direction can look appear to be correct if the eloquence and persuasiveness of a Novatian, Sabellius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, Nestorius – or even an Arius – is sufficient.

We need to let the Fathers be our guide to the Scriptures.

harry,

Thanks very much for your considerable effort in bringing this material to our attention. It does help show that "We need to let the Fathers be our guide to the Scriptures" has been a consistent position, or the consistent position, of the Catholic Church since, well, the Fathers themselves.

My problem (our problem, if you consider others in Protestantism with me) is when the position of the Church is so at odds with the plain reading of Scripture that the position of the Church can't be right.

Let me use three extra-scriptural illustrations.

First, there comes a point where assenting to the official view despite its obvious opposition to the text would be to say that the Emperor has a fine suit of clothes on. I'm willing to believe, and I do, anything that the Scripture says (Adam and Eve, 6 days for creation, Jonah in the whale, you name it) even though I don't understand all about it. I've written about the many variances of the Catholic view with obvious readings of scripture, so I won't open them here, except for a small one as an example. Jesus said, don't call anyone on earth your father, for you are all brothers (Matt 23:9), spoken in the context of not exalting leaders among, well, the original Fathers (12 disciples). Why then the Catholic practice of calling priests Father? Even John Paul II recognized this situation in his book that I read, and he essentially wrote, "well, yes there is that practice." But in writing that, he humbled himself and did not consider that title something to be grasped, and I sensed the Spirit of God in that answer and in his attitude, not because he was the Pope but because it was a living, breathing representation of Jesus' humble attitude recorded in Philippians chapter 2.

Second, as I've written before, the Scripture is not a document only for specialists, but for everyone, like the U.S. Constitution. In the Constitution, there are gray areas 225 years later, but that's not what troubles me; it's the willing disregard of the black and white that is obvious to anyone, such as the gargantuan bloat of political power gobbled up by Washington DC versus the 10th Amendment. Rummaging around in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution to find new rights to privacy, in someone's witty phrase, is not to be accepted because that rummaging fool is on the Supreme Court. To say that only the Supreme Court can give the authoritative interpretation to that document is to say something that is just not so. I once took an oath to defend the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and the Supreme Court wasn't part of that oath except by implication when it kept to its lawful sphere in the text. It's interesting you mention the Council of Trent, which was an organizational response that doubled down and supporting the abuses in the church that Martin Luther was pointing out. At that time, the Church kept scripture out of the hands of the common people, even burning men at the stake who translated it into the common tongues. Men who did that could freely do, and did, just as much violence to Scripture as they did to those who died on its behalf.

And third, statistically, I'd rather have noise and biases of many interpreters than the bias of one interpreter.

How do we know that the Spirit's guiding ministry will be only an organizational one and not an individual one anyway? Your organizational view of the church's veracity seems to ignore the concept of the broken branches and grafted branches of the olive tree in Romans 11. A group of people, or an organization, that over time strays from Jesus' word may be broken off and slowly wither while visibly remaining an organization and even, for a while, appearing that it is connected. That is not a theoretical risk, but a real risk. Likewise John 15, with the branches of the true vine. Otherwise, why would Jesus warn us to abide in his word (that word again), and Paul warn us against unbelief (that word again)? Just because an organization did the purposes of God in past time does not mean that it is doing the purposes of God now, or that it is even connected to God. An appeal to final authority deriving from the Holy Spirit's ministry of guiding us into all truth in John 16 is undermined by effectively ignoring the primacy of the spoken and written word of Jesus in John 15 when that word conflicts with, say, tradition or the Pope.

But back to the Fathers. You've challenged me to look to the Fathers for the interpretation of Scripture. Fair enough, I need to include them at least in my devotional reading, as I've done with John Paul II. Thanks, that's great advice that I intend to take. As someone has written, "Be humble. A lot was accomplished before you were born."

Hello, Dean,

Thank you for your frank and charitably expressed thoughts.

You wrote of the sins of Catholic Church, for example:

“It's interesting you mention the Council of Trent, which was an organizational response that doubled down and supporting the abuses in the church that Martin Luther was pointing out. At that time, the Church kept scripture out of the hands of the common people, even burning men at the stake who translated it into the common tongues. Men who did that could freely do, and did, just as much violence to Scripture as they did to those who died on its behalf.”

First of all, there are two sides two every story. To get an aggressive version of the Catholic side, read *Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church* by H. W. Crocker. For a work that reminds one of the all too rarely considered benefits the Catholic Church brought to Western Civilization, see *How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization* by Thomas E. Woods. Lastly, read the works of Philip Hughes. Here are some excerpts from his *The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870*, the text of which is online at:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HCOUNCIL.TXT

“The Catholic critics of the intolerable abuses – for which the Roman Curia was generally held responsible – now expected to be heard, at the council. ...”

“Pole, at forty-five, was roughly Cervini's contemporary, a scholar primarily, the Christian humanist indeed, and learned in the Fathers, in the new Renaissance manner. With his great friend Contarini, whom a premature death had carried off in 1542, he was regarded by all as the very embodiment of the Catholic Reformation. It fell to him to write the opening address of the legates to the council-- **a frank admission that it was clerical sin mainly that had brought religion to this pass**, and a passionate plea for sincerity in the deliberations. One who was present has recorded that as the secretary of the council read the speech, the bishops instinctively turned to look at Pole, recognising from its tone and content who was its actual author. Paul III could have given no clearer sign of his own sincerity than in this association of Cervini and Pole in the direction of the longed-for council.”

Hughes goes on to describe how the Council of Trent “had looked directly in the face the dreadful disorders that had for centuries disfigured the practice of religion, and had laid the axe to the root of the tree.”

So, there is another side to the story of the Council of Trent, too. Hughes does not whitewash the sins of the Church, and, I think, gives an honest assessment of the the Council of Trent and its reforms. Another good read is his *Popular History of the Catholic Church*; is a small book but provides a great overview of Church history.

The history of an organization with a divine, holy, perfect component – the Holy Spirit present in the Church forever to guide its teaching according to the promises of Christ – and a component with a fallen nature – humanity – one should expect to be a story of great sinners and great saints. That it is.

Christ never promised the Church would be sinless. It is an institution which, according to the wisdom of the world, should have collapsed many times throughout the centuries, often due to its own corruption. But it hasn't. This is because, ultimately, the Body of Christ is animated by an indestructible Holy Spirit. It can't be destroyed, although it functions much better when its members are animated by that same Spirit instead of their own willful spirits.

“But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

The test Gamaliel proposed turned out to be a good one. In a few centuries it was apparent that the Jewish authorities and the mighty Roman Empire, both of which tried to destroy Christianity, had indeed been “fighting against God.”

So, five centuries have passed, was Luther's movement “of human origin” or was it “from God”? Unlike the Jewish temple being destroyed in A.D. 70, the Vatican is still standing. The Roman Catholic Church has not been reduced to a struggling remnant – it is a billion strong. Unlike the Roman Empire being Christianized instead of destroying Christianity, the dismemberment of the Body of Christ and the rejection of its institutional authority by many of its members brought about the rejection of its authority and relevance altogether by the state; this made the atheistic, completely secularized states of today possible, leading to the destruction of Christendom. What do you think? What has the test of Gamaliel revealed?

The reformation, if it had truly been a movement of God, it seems to me, would have overwhelmed the "old" Christianity much as Christianity became a much more dominant force in the Roman Empire than the Jewish religion and paganism combined had been, and did so in spite of significant powers opposing it. This didn't happen.

The reformation, rather than it overwhelming the "old" Christianity, found its "followers were dispersed," to use Gamaliel's expression, into numerous contradictory versions of Christianity, a dispersal that took place just as Gamaliel said would happen if a movement was not of divine origin.

The rejection of an authority established by God is not honored by God according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures testify to the fact that God tends to put somebody in charge and stand by them. (Think of the earth opening and swallowing up those who rebelled against Moses in Numbers 16). What Gamaliel knew happens when an authority established by God is rejected, unless He has established a new authority, should and did happen after the Church's authority was rejected by the reformers – a dispersal and a splintering of those following men they shouldn't have been following. That didn't happen when the Christians denied the authority of those in the “Chair of Moses.” It did happen when the Protestants denied the authority of the “Chair of Peter.”

Luther had legitimate complaints. Had he stuck to reforming the institutional Body of Christ he would probably be honored today as one of Christianity's greatest saints and reformers by the Catholic Church – and Christendom would probably still exist. As it is, all we can do is make a genuine effort to let the Holy Spirit guide us in being a holy, healing ointment in the wounds of the Body of Christ. We have been – Protestants and Catholics alike – salt in those wounds for far too long.

harry,

Thanks again for the detailed exposition of the Catholic position. It certainly helps me to understand where you're coming from. I learn something new every day, and hearing that there were positive things at the Council of Trent is certainly one of those things. I'm not so sure that Luther chose to depart; that choice may well have been made for him by the hierarchy. You know how loved whistleblowers are.

That is an interesting point about Gamaliel. His words were well reasoned, but I think not fully applicable here. First, I don't think the Reformation's followers have been dispersed; on the contrary, the modern mission movement carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the four corners of the world. And the Catholic Church is unquestionably large, but I don't see it is healthier, or in many cases as healthy, in many places around the world than the evangelical Protestant denominations in those same places.

Rom. 11 anticipates a re-grafting of the Jewish remnant after this period of judgment, which was designed by God to be a curative by, among other things, making them jealous of those who were grafted in. I can still see a possible parallel between the Catholic Church losing its sole position due to the Reformation and Israel losing its sole position as the people of God on earth.

Yes, it is a tragedy, the fracturing of the Body of Christ. But I still think God is at work in the Catholic Church, just not any longer as the sole expression of Christ's body on earth. Your suggestion that the Reformation as not of God is understandable given your perspective, but I urge you to see if your position in that regard should be moderated. After all, the separation of ancient Israel into two kingdoms was God's doing, but he intended that they still worship together.

Meanwhile, we are to love one another and pray for unity, that these divisions are healed. Best regards!

God bless you, Dean!


"... the modern mission movement carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the four corners of the world. And the Catholic Church is unquestionably large, but I don't see it is healthier, or in many cases as healthy, in many places around the world than the evangelical Protestant denominations in those same places."

I don't doubt the zeal of Evangelical Protestants or that they possess the Spirit of Christ. They are used mightily by God. I will discuss that momentarily.

"I can still see a possible parallel between the Catholic Church losing its sole position due to the Reformation and Israel losing its sole position as the people of God on earth."

The latter was connected to the Chair of Moses giving way to the Chair of Peter. The former -- the Chair of Peter, the rock upon which Christ built His Church, according to the promises of Christ, will last until the end of time.

"Your suggestion that the Reformation as not of God ..."

The reformation of the Church was of God, the dismemberment of the Body of Christ was not. Even so, God turns all situations to good. You said earlier:

"I'm willing to believe, and I do, anything that the Scripture says (Adam and Eve, 6 days for creation, Jonah in the whale, you name it) even though I don't understand all about it."

That willingness to believe in the historicity of the Scriptures is a very good thing. While I only feel bound to do so where the Fathers unanimously did so, as they did not all believe that all biblical genres are historical, I really appreciate the *willingness* to believe in the Scriptures of Evangelicals. That is a blessed thing in the eyes of God, I think. It reminds me of the remark of Jesus: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." When one is in awe of the Word of God -- as we all should be -- and believes in the power and goodness of our Father in Heaven, and believes that “nothing is impossible for God,” one has that necessary child-like faith of which Christ spoke, and which is necessary to receive what the Word of God contains.

What is impossible for the One Who brought the entire Universe into existence out of nothing? Why is it so many “sophisticated” bible Scholars will happily admit God did that, but when it comes to applying that power of God to a biblical example of His power, like His keeping Jonah alive in a big fish for a few days, they ridicule the very notion of such a thing actually happening. Why? Is that too difficult for God to do?

Augustine and Jerome defended the historicity of that event. Augustine admitted Christians are ridiculed for such belief, and suggests that non-believers ought to ridicule us for our belief in the resurrection instead, since it is a far greater miracle. John Chrysostom speaks of the necessity of the historicity of this biblical type if its fulfillment is historical; its fulfillment is the death and resurrection of Jesus – if we don't believe in that we are not even Christian. Cyril of Jerusalem cites the historicity of Jonah as reason for believing in the resurrection. None of the Fathers express doubt about the historicity of the account of Jonah being preserved in the depths of the sea within a giant fish. Denial of this event among Scripture scholars only began in the mid 19th century.

So, was the Holy Spirit wrong in what He led the entire Church to believe for 1,850 years? Did He make a mistake that “sophisticated” Bible scholars are straightening out for Him? I don't think so. God bless the Evangelicals for their child-like faith in the Scriptures! As I said, God is using them mightily; they are preserving that child-like faith in the Word of God that the Fathers possessed.

Here is where we have a difference on the Scriptures: There was not unanimity among the Fathers regarding, for example, the creation accounts in Genesis. Augustine, who was a staunch defender of the historicity of Jonah, was caustic in his criticism of insisting on a literal interpretation of the creation accounts. The Church to this day, while it allows one to believe, for example, in God's fashioning of the body of Adam from dirt, does not insist upon it. Nor should it. There was not unanimity among the Fathers in this regard. I should point out again, as I did in previous post to you on another web page, that the official teaching of the Church in regard to the Scriptures has been protected by the Holy Spirit. Unofficially, in many Catholic educational institutions, Scripture scholarship, I believe, has gone astray, along with much Protestant Scripture scholarship.

It would be a very healthy thing for the Body of Christ if the Evangelicals came home, and brought their blessed, child-like faith in the Scriptures with them.

What speaks more viciously against the Holy ghost than driving him out of his temple by our sin. I agree Dan, In the first interpretation, Jesus is giving his listeners an illustration about the Kingdom of God. He says, "It’s like a man who is going away on a journey, and he leaves his servants with a certain amount of money- each according to his ability. To the first he gave 5 talents, to the second, 2 talents and to the third servant, 1 talent." The servants are entrusted with something special- and they each need to decide what to do with what they have been given.

Thanks, harry. I'm sure we'll be continuing our conversations in articles to come. I appreciate your time, effort and gracious approach to these discussions. May God bless you too.

Thanks, Dean,

If we accomplish nothing else, maybe we can demonstrate how differences can be discussed in a courteous, civil fashion, one that acknowledges and respects the Spirit of Christ in another's denomination, and yet remains frank and honest. That in itself is a big step in the right direction.

God bless!

Harry,

I must commend you for your gentle and courteous responses to Dean although I'm pretty sure by previous positioning and presuppositions your suggesting a, "child-like faith in the Scriptures!" for evangelical Protestants isn't something fully comprehended or even considered as a possibility at this juncture by Dean.

For example, returning to Dean's three-point problem post, I don't believe the first point has been adequately addressed to present to Dean a clear case of "child-like" (more correctly innocent yet misguided interpretative tradition) of evangelical Protestants.

The first point, although a "minor example" as noted by Dean was the question of
"Why then the Catholic practice of calling priests Father?" if Matt23:9 suggests the opposite.

The Key
Correctly interpreted (by the one authoritative body Christ has left us), the context of this portion of Gospel of Matthew is not to be taken literally in the sense of reserving titles such as father since Jesus is speaking in hyperbole.

Jesus exaggerates to his audience who would have fully understood this type of argumentation 2000 years ago. Fast-forward to today with the multiple voices of which Dean affirms he would, "rather have" because, "noise and biases of many interpreters than the bias of one interpreter" is his preference and Catholics can clearly see what that most grievous lie of sola scriptura has done.

With the modern interpretative traditions of non-Catholics and often a revisionism of scriptural instruction that can often continue to alter, based on the new community splits that are all so common, finds them not in truth but in error.

Back to Matthew 23

The real point contained in the chapter is we are to have one God in heaven alone, hence one Father of all creation.

If however we are to take the literalistic interpretation of this verse void of context, then what are we to make of the verse prior?

Matt 23:8 "But you be not called Rabbi: for one is your Teacher, even Christ; and all you are brothers."

In the biblical language of Matthew, Rabbi would have actually translated as Doctor (hence teacher) to the Hellenized Jewish readers of the New Testament and therefore we could naturally ask of Dean,

Why do evangelicals call their pastors and preachers Doctor? such as, Doctor Billy Graham, Doctor David Jeremiah, Doctor Charles Stanley and so on and so on, when clearly the scriptures explain to us not to do so.

Further, if Jesus had issue with others being given the title father other then God the Father then why do we discover (from scripture of course for all so-called "bible alone" believers) Jesus giving Abraham the title of father?

Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." John8:56

Also, being a good disciple of Christ and of course one of if not the first Christian martyr we find Saint Stephen repeating Christ's own usage of father for Abraham and also use the title of "father" for the priests and elders about to sentence him,

To this he replied: "Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.
Act 7:2

And finally, even that great evangelist St. Paul of whom many a modern-day evangelical Protestant reads and looks to as their namesake clearly states he is in fact a father because of the gospel he preaches to others, he goes so far as to claim , he begets those who listens to and follows his instruction.

Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 1Cor4:15 NIV

For though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have you not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 1Cor4:15 KJV

For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. 1Cor4:15 Douay-Rhiems


And so, without triumphalism in mind, to say it is a extremely humbling experience for any evangelical Protestant to consider that perhaps just perhaps Catholics do know the bible, should never be understated.

For the same to also acknowledge Catholicism is "The Bible Church" and that Catholics are so uniquely joined to Christ that their Church authority requires at least a second look most definitely takes an additional huge leap of faith as the last 450 years has birthed an enormous amount of anti-Catholic propaganda, hatred as well as caricature amongst our separated brethren.

I will pray for Dean of Ohio as I'm sure you already do with the hope he come to understand those who are Christian within Catholicism as he sees are not so in exception to Church guidance and authoritative teaching but precise because it!

Andy,

Thanks for joining the conversation. I think you and I are about where harry and I were a couple of weeks ago. Welcome!

About caricatures, let's dispense with them. That's partly why I'm here. I counter these with my Protestant brothers and sisters, and I trust you do the same in your Catholic family.

Agreed about titles; let's dispense with those too. Since I earned my Ph.D. a couple of years ago, I have been called "Doctor" maybe 20 times, always in a work setting. Unless my organization needs its authority in a business transaction, I usually, say, "Please, call me Dean." My parents have an Ed.D., a Ph.D. and D.Miss and several masters degrees between them, but they are more humble than I. Just goes to show you that C.S. Lewis was right when he writes in The Great Divorce that only the greatest can become the least. Our pastor prefers informal titles, although I still call him Pastor out of respect and teach my kids to do the same.

Your citations of various "father" usages have varying contexts. I think the ones Jesus was ruling in Matt 23 against were the organizational titles of rank, which to me it seems are bestowed on priests in the Catholic church merely because of their position in the hierarchy. Many do deserve such respect by greater deeds than mine, and I try to show that respect when I encounter them. I think I have the liberty in Christ to call someone "Father," including a Catholic Priest, out of love and respect, but I draw back when it becomes a badge of rank. Furthermore, "Your father Abraham" was referring to genealogy, and "your father the devil" to their belonging to the kingdom of Satan and not the kingdom of God. To roll up all of these examples up into a defense of the Catholic use of "Father" is exegetically shaky.

My main point is, and here has been, that being used and designated by God as "the Church" is not an immunity idol that saves it from God's discipline, which may include God setting it aside for a time, or using someone else for a time. It almost seems that's the way you're using verses like Matt 16:18 (I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it). It reminds me of how the nation of Israel trusted in their lineage, their temple, their priesthood, etc. despite their lack of obedience and hard hearts. How many times did the prophets, all the way through John the Baptist, tell them that they and all they trusted in would be set aside due to their disobedience and unbelief? Yes, God will preserve his church, but maybe not in the organizational manner you think. Romans 11 means nothing if it does not mean that the Gentiles recently welcomed into are also subject to the discipline of God, that may mean being set aside for a time in favor of someone else:

"Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you [Gentiles, Romans], provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!" --Romans 11:22-24 (NIV1984)

So when I hear arguments from Matt 16 for the permanence of a particular organizational expression of the church being used to override the possibility of God's discipline by setting aside that organization for a time and using others who will produce the fruit of the Gospel a la Matt 21, the parable of the Vineyard, I remember John's words in Matt 3:9, "And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." Not taking this warning is, I think, a kind of self-delusion.

As far as the Roman Catholic church being "The Bible Church," may God make it so! No one would be happier than I if this were to happen. History and my current observations indicate that you have a ways to go before one can say of the rank and file of the church what was said of the Jews in Berea on Paul's visit to them:

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." - Acts 17:11 (NIV1984)

Noble is as noble does.

Hi, Dean, Andy,

Whether or not it is appropriate to call a Catholic priest "Father" is hardly an issue that justifies being content with the current dismemberment of the Body of Christ on Earth.

Let's address a more substantial issue: God was present to His people in the "Tent of Meeting" in His divinity. God has since become a Man. Does it not make sense that He would now make Himself present to His people in His humanity as well as in His divinity? He does this through His Eucharistic presence, where His glorified humanity is mingled with our own, and hopefully, provided we subdue our own willful spirits, the Spirit that animates His risen humanity will animate our own, making us one body.

"The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf."

Ignatius knew the apostle John. John informs us of Christ's intentions in this regard in John 6. We can probably trust Ignatius' understanding of John's account of Christ explaining that we must consume His flesh and blood if we are to have life within us. Ignatius makes clear that the Eucharist is truly the flesh of Christ. This belief is expressed explicitly by many of the Fathers.

As Vincent of Lerins pointed out a thousand years before the reformation, there are as many interpretations of the Scriptures as there are people who read it. Is it up to us decide our own interpretation is correct? Or is the understanding of the Fathers of John 6 correct? We need to look at what the Holy Spirit, according to the promise of Christ, led the Fathers to unanimously believe. We need to look at the belief and practice the Spirit preserved in the Church from the beginning, up to the reformation and past it to this very day. If one believes in the promises of Christ, one is bound to look at the results of the promised work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Can one's personal interpretation of the Scriptures be valid if it is contrary to that?

Everyone being their own authority is exactly the same as having no authority at all. The Scriptures testify to the fact that God sets up an authority and stands by it until He establishes a new authority. Christians are bound to submit to the authority God has established. If we don't do that, we get what we currently have, which is thousands of authorities, contradicting each other and making Christianity look very foolish to the world we are supposed to be converting by the example we set by our unity and our love for one another. We need to once again become, though many, one body, by all of us partaking of one Eucharistic loaf.

harry,

"substantial issue" - nice word choice. Thanks again for your explanation. Protestants would argue that he has set up an authority--the word of his own mouth--with the Holy Spirit to guide us. But we've been over that already and do not need to re-open that here. I do understand your point in desiring to have a human interpretative authority to settle all disputes. Or almost all, perhaps, since Paul the Apostle writes of days of worship and the like, "Let every man be convinced in his own mind."

Also I've mentioned, the Scripture says, "Obey your leaders, and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls." Amen. The question is whether this is a local body (as many or most Protestants would claim in their ecclesiology) or a national or worldwide a hierarchy (in the Roman Catholic Church). Something to keep in mind as I read the Fathers. I'm also still turning over in my mind & heart the Catholic (and Orthodox, and, if Peter Leithart is Reformed as I heard, his view as well) of the Eucharist. May God speed the day when we do partake together.

God bless,

Dean

Hi, Dean, Andy,

"He does this through His Eucharistic presence, where His glorified humanity is mingled with our own ..."

I should have said, "with our fallen humanity," or something that couldn't be misunderstood as meaning that I thought we had a glorified humanity, too.

Dean, thanks for your thoughtful consideration of the views of others.

Christ prayed hard for our unity. I think it is safe to assume His prayers are efficacious. ;o)

So, since the unity of the Body of Christ will be restored eventually, we might as well do the best we can to be a part of that happening. We don't want to be among those who “forever resist the Holy Spirit.”

Hello Dean of Ohio,

"Noble is as noble does. " ? not sure what you are implying...

Perhaps you could start by explaining the your reasoning behind the quotation of Acts 17:11 I'm not seeing it from an orthodox interpretation.

something tells me this thread has gone unnoticed.

I was reading more recent posts at firstthings ("biblical-illiteracy-and-bible-babel") and see newer conversations are taking root amongst those who have voiced their opinions here.

I'm going to suggest the following as a response to what I wrongly believe Dean was implying of being noble,

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/not-by-scripture-alone

Hi Andy,
Yes, you're right. Please see newer thread at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/05/biblical-illiteracy-and-bible-babel.
God bless,
Dean