Sunday, June 12, 2022

Mike Winger took on Catholicism

Roman Catholicism: Contending for the Faith
26th June 2020 | Mike Winger

Steve Hammer
Having this discussion with two people who are not Catholic invalidates everything. This allows you to make assertions without permitting a Catholic to refute or affirm your claims. Kind of cowardly to be honest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Actually, it's not a discussion, and I am supplementing by adding Catholic (Not V-II) comments. With time stamps.

4:26 Thank you, you admit, as Catholics do, St. Jude is talking about the doctrines, the belief.

This will be interesting. A first question, quickly jumps to my mind : if the faith was once delivered, it ought to be accessible "all days until the consummation of all time" (Mt. 28:20) and this visibly (Mt. 5:14,15). Sure, you could point to previous verse (Mt 5:13) as a possibility of a "Great Apostasy" (as understood by Restaurationists), but we would in view of the other prooftexts considere this loss of savour refers to either individual or smaller collective losses of good exemple (doctrinal and in discipline) than a full scale whole church apostasy. So, the question : where was the faith once given in AD 400?

7:08 As St. Paul said sth in Galatians about not through the law, could you clarify from the context that it is indeed the kind of law he is upholding for all in Ephesians (when it talks of human relations) or which he upholds in negative in the list of sins in I Cor 6, or is it rather the kind of law which was a paedagogue in Galatians 3 and to which he is far from holding Titus?

Because, the "works" we are "adding" are not the Mosaic kashroot!

7:49 The people the lady heard saying "I had no idea the Catholic Church teaches that" could have been lying from embarassment at seeing a cherished tenet attacked in a way Modernist catechesis has not prepared them for.

But they could also have been genuinely ignorant, for two reasons:
  • it's the US, the dominant culture is not Catholic, getting Catholic information as a Catholic will get you stamped as geeky if not worse;
  • Modernist catechesis may have been so lacunary it left them not just unprepared to defend, but also ignorant of some points.

And here is a third reason. Many priests and religious and other catechists in the Vatican II Sect and some in the parallel Trad jurisdictions, are confortable with being the one who explains so others need to depend on them. Meaning, they are confortable with giving a fairly superficial overview stated in current terms rather than exact ones. I've seen an Orthodox priest (yes, i was "on excursion" to those 2006 to 2009) explain the pre-baptismal exorcism as "getting rid of spiritual environment hasards" rather than the correct one "since Adam we are born under the dominion of Satan, except Our Lord and Our Lady and two more saints sanctified in the womb, and this means demons could very well already be active around the child, so we want to free him (or her) even before letting in the Holy Ghost through baptism" - you see what I mean with current terms rather than exact terms?

There are Roman Catholics who think that:
  • // homosexual persons, that is persons with predominant same sex attraction, not acting out this disorder, still cannot marry one of the opposite sex, but are by default called to celibacy // - no doctrinal statement to the effect, except a half and half, interpretable, remark by "Paul VI" who some of us (me included) refer to as Antipope Montini, with a footnote to a text from 1568 which actually does mention penance in solitude - but this being for priests and monks who had already promised too much to marry and for things beyond the mere attraction, like sodomy or touching another male's butt (and while this text was enforced, we did not have the crisis the Vatican II Sect got in the seventies, with processes still ongoing, though malfeasance took a turn down in the 90's);
  • // teens are morally not allowed to marry, and for an unwed teen mother, adoption and not marriage is the responsible option // despite canon law having the 14 / 12 limit for centuries since the Middle Ages, and despite the raising only was to a new 16 / 14 limit (higher age for the male partner, since boys come later into puberty);
  • //a man of 40 and a girl of 14 is paedophilia// despite there being no such defined crime, and despite the Catholic Church definitely not having banned marriages of such an age relation in the past.

In other words, Catholics adapt a bit too much to the surrounding culture.

8:14 So, you don't want to say Catholicism alters essential Gospel truths ... easy, if you can document a Church alongside Catholicism over all the centuries of Catholicism (since its doing so) and having the fairly reasonable appearance of being a candidate for existing before Catholicism, as much as Catholicism for having existed before it.

Or, if you can't, impossible, since the alternative to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy, or Copts or Armenians or Assyrians) preserving the Gospel and the Faith once given is, Christ could not keep his promise or didn't even make one in Matthew 28:20.

Oh, wait, Baptist continuity ... yeah, you make a case that early Christians were Baptists (though there is no prooftext in Bible or Early Church Fathers for it), and since you are Baptist, this is still around ... key word "still" ... were you anywhere in particular in AD 500? Was a Baptist minister sent by a Baptist minister in Rome to convert the Anglo-Saxons about a Century later? I for my part stick to Pope St. Gregory and St. Augustine of Canterbury having been Catholics, not Baptist ministers!

8:51 Yeah, we do.

Sources of Revelation:
  • Bible (73 books, not 66)
  • Tradition (Church Fathers, especially when unanimous, questions not touched by them, next generation, scholastics, plus obviously canonic law and liturgic statements, the older and more universal the better).

Expression of this in disputed and important questions:
  • Pope deciding ex cathedra
  • Bishops voting in a council convoked or confirmed by a Pope
  • Bishops unanimously teaching one and the same thing across the globe and over the centuries.

There is no statement that is in the Bible that can be erroneous, unless attributed to a non-authoritative person, but in the rest of these, there are types of statements on each level that could be fallible but shouldn't be supposed erroneous unless there is a very good reason. Pope decides ex cathedra on moral or doctrine intending to bind the whole Church = infallible. Pope decides to erect a diocese in Africa or give the Papal States to Mussolini = not infallible, and each of these could be unjudicious. At least, when Antipope Montini erected two dioceses in Africa, he uniquely applied to himself a title "Vicarius Filii Dei" which up to him is in Catholic sources only found in those exact words in the Donatio Constantini, where it applies to St. Peter, not to Popes after him, and in citations from that, discussing that. Also, PAULUS PP / PAULUS PP. (not the obvious spelling of "Pope Paul" - one could try PAVLVS papa or PAVLVS pp.) in ASCII gives 666.*

* It's PAULUS PP even before the .

9:10 "and the priests who are underneath them"

While a priest is normally supposed to have studied theology more and be a quick reference authority in relation to the layman, a priest who is not a bishop or bishop elect (or at the very least a sui juris abbot) actually belongs to the "ecclesia docta" - like the layman, the lay brother monk, the religious sister, the seminarian.

Only Popes and Bishops (and possibly sui juris abbots even without episcopal consecration) belong to the "ecclesia docens."

And "in the New Testament" Christ said something of ...

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]

Now, the Church for this purpose has to be visible, and it has to wield an actual authority over its faithful, not just these being under the Bible, but according to the Bible under a body of people here referred to as "the Church" - while some pretend this in the NT meant the whole local congregation, with no hierarchic distinction, this is not in the Bible and it is also not in Church history.

When Pope St. Clement of Rome writes to the Corinthians, it is because, to a quarrel in Corinth, he is the Church. And this happened before AD 100, before St. John wrote his Gospel.

9:17 Yeah, you are making a case for there being no priests, as to a special priesthood over and above the general one, but this case depends on a non-infallible reading of I Peter 2:9, which goes at loggerheads with certain facts, like Christ chosing :

  • among the general followers and disciples 72
  • and 12 (probably already within the 72, and then 12 new ones added or not)
  • and one among the 12, Peter.

Similarily, in Acts, the apostles (arguably meaning both 12 and 72) set out to elect 7 deacons in the specific purpose of allowing themselves more time for typically priestly chores, like exposing the word.

9:45 "these are leaders of local fellowships"

According to an ingenious philological analysis ...

And using "elders" for priests presupposes that the Catholic view of a "priest" is does not correspond to what a "presbyteros" was in the NT. In face of the apparent continuity over the centuries, the burden of proof is on you.

But suppose you were right where were ... let's not rant on AD 500, so, let's take AD 700 instead?

9:52 "they are not even leading cities, they are just local groups"

In Rome you had one bishop (aka the pope) and lots of presbyters even deacons "leading" (we'd prefer the term presiding) smaller Churches (which usually later became visible from street Church buildings).

Archaeology does prove there were house churches (not quite what the term suggests today, like they were major villas in some cases, the kind of place where a private man could gather lots of guests to do lots of stuff (anything from plotting to overthrow the Republic to actually overthrowing its paganism by being Christians). What archaeology does not prove though is that the different presbyters and deacons all over Rome were all independent from not just each other but also a bishop (of Rome as a whole).

10:08 Actually what you are holding in your hand is a non-Catholic document.

I'm not sure what percentage of the text is Catholic between 80 and 99 %, but I am sure it's not a fully Catholic text, it was edited by an Antipope, Wojtyla, and his "cardinal" and successor as then upcoming antipope, now emeritus such, Ratzinger.

But probably what you will cite now is in fact Catholic.

10:52 "he's the boss of the world"

Not quite, he doesn't have this kind of authority over unbaptised non-Christians, since they do not belong to the Church universal.

He can at an utmost limit take measures when certain countries criminally deprive their residents of missionaries, to ask kings and emperors and such to conquer such lands and overthrow such criminal governments, this being what pope Alexander VI did when it came to dividing missionary and crusader efforts (with gains in power and riches along with them) between Spain and Portugal. But he cannot for instance state that a government that does allow Catholic missionaries should be overthrown.

11:07 Yeah, certainly. St. Peter outranked Nero who did not chose to obey him but to crucify him.

The Pope very definitely does outrank secular governments, and so do even Catholic bishops on their limited non-Roman territory.

A President who allows abortions, each Catholic bishop in US can do to him what one brave man did to Pelosi : tell the office holder to repent and defend unborn life, or to keep away from the Eucharist.

12:04 "if someone in the local church down the street said 'hey, I am in charge of the whole world' "

... I would ask as a reply "when did a Catholic conclave elect you?"

Seriously, if the original Church had been lots of independent local churches, how could such a claim have been accepted by as many as the whole Catholic world? The acceptance (with a few hurdles on how equal the patriarch of Constantinople is to him, whether the jurisdiction is really immediate or only one of appeal and whether he needs to obey the Emperor in Church things or the Emperor needs to obey him in secular things, that is, whether Church or State is in charge of "mixed matters") was fairly universal, it did not come as a reply to a specific boast made then and there, as soon as we see the Church in full daylight, at Nicaea, and before we have full unity on the 27 books of the NT.

Go to Acts 7, or 8, whenever Samaria gets its Church, the second Church in the Church universal, after Jerusalem, which originally carried the supremacy now in Rome, Samaria is not autonomous, it gets its ordinations and confirmations from, precisely the headquarter in Jerusalem. But perhaps you imagine Samaria was independent after that? Well, wrong again, check Acts 15, a council in Jerusalem, not holding pastors (even at bishop level) from all the Christian world, pretends to decide for the Christian world.

12:37 "poll out little pieces of church history"

Now, that's a devious way of putting it.

You make it sound as if we had access to lots more of church history (recorded, not reconstructed like you do) and that if we looked at a wider picture, we would come to a very different conclusion.

What we say is, we take the Church history that is still available to us, and we think, when it is unanimous, God speaks through it, like He spoke through the history of Israel. When it is not unanimous, there may be ways to make it speak anyway, like logical conclusions from other things unanimously taught.

Because, making the claim that "oh, sure, in AD 400, I don't find any small independent, less than big city sized congregations, and in AD 500 I don't find them and in AD 600 I don't find them and in AD 700 I don't find them and in AD 800 I don't find them either, but this is still the basic rule," and then when a Catholic says "in AD 400 I find churches ruled by bishops in communion with the Pope, and in AD 500 I find that and in AD 600 I find that (notably involved in how English Pagans became English Christians) and in AD 700 I find that and in AD 800 I find that (notably involved in how a Mission began in Sweden and took root in North Germany, specifically Hamburg)" you then turn around and say we are cherrypicking, that is for one thing disingenious, if you really would like us believe you mean you are accusing us of the cherrypicking, and also, if you admit your small local and yet fully independent congregations got lost along the way (apart from being your reconstruction of what the texts from back very early say) and now are back, you are claiming, contrary to Matthew 28:20, that essential truth was lost. The faith once given is now a faith twice given, first to 1st C Apostles and some millennium later again to ... Waldensians, if that's your taste. But St. Jude doesn't speak of a faith "twice" given, it's a faith once given.

12:50 The basic rule is:
  • if a Church Father we quote agrees with other Church Fathers, he is authoritative
  • if he should disagree with other Church Fathers, neither side is fully so, unless logically supported by other tradition, or supported by a Church Council.

When it comes to Sts Augustine and Jerome, we have a better grip on this than the Reformers had.

St. Augustine sometimes sounds a bit like a Jansenist, like Luther, like Calvin. Let's say such people really had a case for pretending he fully agreed with them. He also told St. Jerome to include books in the LXX for which he had no Hebrew original.
St. Jerome didn't want to, but he very clearly believed in freewill, since he was quoted and overquoted by Erasmus in his dispute with Luther.

Now, the fact is, we don't find lots of Church Fathers sounding as if they denied freewill, but we do find Church Tradition (individual authors as well as collective decisions) to include what you would call "Apocrypha" - hence, we are correct in this respect before Tradition, to affirm freewill and the 73 books.

You have preferred the topsyturvy dealing with these two, namely accepting Jerome on the Bible canon (while he disagrees with lots of people and that was what St. Augustine told him, and my example would be councils of Carthage and Rome, between Nicaea and Constantinople) and accepting St. Augustine (or even just your reading of him) when that one (at least the reading) disagrees with more Church Fathers (I can mention a desert father who made a clear statement on the difference between temptation and consent).

13:23 Not only is CCC much more voluminous than the ... Catechism of St. Pius X ... but the documents of "Vatican II" are more voluminous than "previous" (actual) councils.

Though I suspect half of the volume may be explanations in what you are holding up.

14:48 A Catholic is not obliged to know all of the Bible and explicitly believe every page in it.

He is obliged to know parts of the Bible and explacitly believe all of it he knows.

And same with the text mass you were holding up, lots of it is for pastors and for theology geeks, not for the common interest of most faithful - and much of it which is so is taken for granted. Like, I suppose you take Nicene definitions on the Trinity for granted.

15:17 When you speak of Catholics who are informed and don't know Trent, could it be they accept "Vatican II" as a Council and are under pastors so doing?

If so, I see a far more natural explanation than "vast amount of data" ...

Yeah, if you go to some apologists on "Catholic Answers" I bet they don't feel too well along with a text from Trent.

16:08 "it really does become a different Gospel" - oh, sure, from your (per)version, definitely!

It's a different question if it became a different Gospel from the one faith once given.

16:15 "it's not the simple Gospel that we are supposed to ..."

The lady never was able to tell what we were supposed to do with a "simple Gospel" - one thing is sure, believing a "simple Gospel" as opposed to a complex one is not in the Bible.

16:22 Since Mike Winger interrupted.

"It's definitely added to the Gospel"

How does he know, when the fact there is more text than the text of the NT doesn't imply that?

"The real difficult question is, do those additions compromise"

It's in fact your own additions, like "being supposed to believe a simple Gospel" that are compromising the Christian truth.

18:59 "as far as the visible Church is concerned, there are so many ways in which Catholicism is part of Christianity"

And in AD 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, it was so too, but, as far as the visible Church is concerned, there was no way in which Baptism was part of Christianity.

18:59 "as far as the visible Church is concerned, there are so many ways in which Catholicism is part of Christianity"

And in AD 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, it was so too, but, as far as the visible Church is concerned, there was no way in which Baptism was part of Christianity.

21:51 As you are back to Luther's misreading of Galatians ... Bear ye one another's burdens; and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ. ... But let every one prove his own work, and so he shall have glory in himself only, and not in another. For every one shall bear his own burden. This is from Galatians 6.

So, is St. Paul adding works? Is St. Paul adding the law of Christ?

22:37 If you are indeed hearing from Catholics who tell you "those issues don't matter" - give them a slap.

They do, if it's at the level of the highest magisterium, that is, the kind of statement that a Pope or Council marks as infallible.

Before I became a Catholic, I would not have considered it mattered that all of the substance of the bread and wine is changed, only the accidents remain.

I went like basically "what's wrong with consubstantiation" - as long as you affirm that Christ is really present?

Well, more than one thing actually. And I am concerned that some Orthos went to canonise Huss because he taught consubstantiation.

1) The truth of Christ's words "this is my body" - note, He said "this" and not "here"

If the visible accidents of bread and wine had still indicated the actual existence of bread and wine, the word "this" would have referred to the bread and wine, and claiming it was Christ's body would have been a lie (unless you plan on defending impanation, which has its own problems).

So, Christ stated "this" was his body not "here" or "herein" ... it's true if all of the bread became Christ's flesh and therefore the visible accidents of bread became markers of where this flesh of Christ is, and nothing else.

2) The mode of Christ's coming into the place He has in the Eucharist.

Remember, Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, physically, in a place above the stars which is Biblically known as Heaven. Can He bilocate Himself and at the same time be present elsewhere, like some place on Earth where He wants to make a revelation (like on Patmos)? Sure.

But when Christ bilocates that way, He does not change size. He's around six earthly feet tall. Not just inches. Since He is present under the quantity (meaning length, breadth and backtofront parameters) of His body, like He is in Heaven.

In the Eucharist, He is present within the inches that used to be bread. What is happening? He "takes on" the accident of quantity of bread, not as a new quantity of His own body, but as where all of it is within them as He is present in the Eucharist. So, He is arguably taking it from the bread to His body, and this through transsubstantiation. All of the bread within the precise inches of its presence, becomes the Body of Christ. But when x becomes y, x doesn't remain x.

3) The inadequacy of some attempts to get around it.

a) Zwingli and Calvin are actually denying the real presence and very palpably contradicting Christ (so palpably even I could not miss it)
b) Luther attempted consubstantiation, at least wrong from truth perspective
c) Luther also attempted "omnipresence of Christ's body" while Catholics and Calvinists agree that Christ's humanity remains fully human and His body therefore does not extend from one end of the world to the other - so Luther came to nudge the monophysite errors condemned by Calchedon.

Credits to a Novus Ordo priest, formerly my father confessor, for clarifying this to me.

Veritas Muy
YOU: the kind of statement that a Pope or Council marks as infallible
ME: and how do you KNOW which words of the Roman popes are "infallible from GOD" and which are just their own opinions that they CLAIM are from God ??? What is your mechanism for differentiating between the two ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veritas Muy If a real Pope or Council marks something as obliging all Catholics, it is from God.

The difference is not with what they "only claim" is so, the difference is what they do NOT EVEN claim the assent of all Catholics under pain of anathema.

The question whether a Pope or Council could mark something as infallible when it wasn't is about how the promises of Christ to His Church work. We don't believe that happens.

Veritas Muy
@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: The question whether a Pope or Council could mark something as infallible when it wasn't is about how the promises of Christ to His Church work. -- ME: So you are saying that the warnings of Peter and Paul that church leadership will be wolves teaching false doctrines in Acts 20:29-30, 2Peter 2:1-3, 1Timothy 4:1-6, etc -- were false warnings because the "church leadership" (pope/council) are infallible and can not teach false doctrines ???

The "promise of Christ to His Church" in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, is not about infallibility of church leaders.

Hell is the compartment in Sheol that houses the Spirits of unbelievers until the final Judgement of unbelievers in Revelation 20:14-15. Hell does not attack the church. Demons are not in Hell, they are here on earth tormenting, tempting, and possessing Man. Satan is not in Hell, he is roaming the earth to see who he can devour with temptation, lack of faith, etc (1Peter 5:8, 2Corinth 4:4, 1John 5:19, etc)

What are "gates" ?? It is how you ENTER something. Read ALL of Matthew 16:15-18. Jesus is saying that Simon is "fortunate/happy" because GOD has revealed that Jesus IS The Christ/Savior, thus Simon is a "PETROS/rock/stone" (1Peter 2:5). Jesus then says that he will build his church upon THIS PETRA -- those that BELIEVE Jesus is the prophesied Christ/Savior will not enter thru the GATES of and into Hell -- because Hell is for UNBELIEVERS -- thus the "gates of Hell" can not prevail against BELIEVERS who have Eternal Life with GOD thru belief/faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:36, Rom 5:1-2).

For you to think that the Roman Church leadership can not teach false doctrines contradicts God's Holy Scripture -- corrupt men have ALWAYS been in God's physical religious system -- in the OT (Isaiah 9:16, Matthew 23, Matthew 15:1-9, etc), and ALWAYS will be even in the NT church (2Peter 2:1-3, 1Tim 4:1-6, Acts 20:28-29, etc.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veritas Muy A very brief reply will suffice.

There are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and some of them were the Reformers.

A few more of them are recent Antipopes, like Wojtyla, Ratzinger and now Bergoglio (all three blatantly Heliocentric and Evolutionist, so contradicting the Bible).

The question of whether there are corrupt men in the NT Church is not of the ultimate leadership, since one blatant heresy and one blatant contradiction against the Bible (on far easier grounds than the words you take up) will suffice to prove someone is not a Catholic and therefore cannot be, for instance, Pope.

Veritas Muy
@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: There are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and some of them were the Reformers. -- ME: LOL. Paul and Peter are warning about church LEADERSHIP teaching the laity false doctrines -- Luther wasn't a leader or part of the Roman Vatican deciding church doctrines. The warnings of Peter and Paul are not about the Reformers or Protestants -- as a matter of fact, Luther was simply doing what Jesus did; trying to get his Pharisees to reject their added traditions and return to following only written Scripture -- Matthew 15:1-9, Mark 7:7-9,13, etc. But BOTH the Pharisees and the Roman Vatican refused to give up their money making added traditions, and instead went on the attack and slander of those attempting to return God's people to God's Holy Scripture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veritas Muy "Luther wasn't a leader or part of the Roman Vatican deciding church doctrines."

He was a leader in Wittenberg.

Calvin replaced and expelled the Bishops of Geneva.

Calvin's disciple Knox subverted more than half of Scotland, and especially its upper class, while Luther's disciples Olaus and Laurentius got support from the Swedish King or usurper Gustav Wasa to change the religion all over Sweden.

And they decided Church doctrine for what parts of Christendom followed them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veritas Muy "what Jesus did; trying to get his Pharisees to reject their added traditions and return to following only written Scripture"

It doesn't say that Jesus tried exactly that.

The statutes of men which He disagreed with were recent relaxations of duties. Precisely like the Reformation at a certain time very recently relaxed other rules.

It doesn't say He had any beef with "et in traditionibus non scriptis"

23:52 Authority claim ...
  • "wasn't given by Jesus" - except Mt 16:19 and Jn 21:15-17
  • "isn't in the first century" - except Acts 15, except St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians
  • "or the second" - except lavish claims for Rome's authority by St. Ignatius of Antioch
  • "or the third" - except ... here we get a discussion.

In the third century, the guys who decided for two different sets of Christians how to deal with apostasy (especially when regretted) clustered around two claimants to the papal throne : Novatius for the Novatians and Cornelius for the Catholics.

So, how come Rome was so important that people with different views came to cluster around two different candidates for the papacy?

24:05 Sure, Our Lord definitely did not promote changing the laws of God (the kashroot as material expressions is one thing, but not the laws) and He said sth about adding pilpuls for avoiding to give what your parent asks you.

But before you make any kind of claim Catholicism suffers from this fault, you have a problem of proof and of consistency:

  • Prove that the authority claim was an addition and not originally there? Meaning in face of evidence provided it was originally there.
  • Supposing one granted this as a possibility, show where the Church that didn't compromise true Christianity persisted in the same times?

Lepi Doptera
Dude, the world is large enough to accommodate several variations of the Jesus based Nigerian Prince scam. There are more than enough fools to go around to keep you and Mike well fed. ;-)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Lepi Doptera If it were a question of a scam, you'd have a point. As it isn't, I have so.

I am by the way not duly fed by my role as writer, so the point is not adressed to me anyway.

Veritas Muy
@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: Our Lord definitely did not promote changing the laws of God
ME: Jesus was a JEW under the Law Contract of Moses (Galatians 4:4), and speaking to JEWS that were still under the Law of Moses (Matthew 15:24, Romans 15:8) -- thus Jesus told them to obey the Law of Moses for their Righteousness before GOD (Matthew 5:19-20, Deut 6:25). That was BEFORE Jesus died/resurrected, which made all things NEW, including a New Contract/Testament with GOD, which was Righteousness by FAITH ALONE -- see Romans 5:1-2 -- because Jesus became CURSED on the wooden cross (Galatians 3:13) by taking all of our sins and all of GOD's judgement for our sins upon his own body on the cross (John 12:31-33, John 3:14-15) and gave us his perfect Righteousness (2Corinth 5:21, Hebrews 10:14).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veritas Muy Romans 1:1-2.

[1] Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: [2] By whom also we have access through faith into this grace, wherein we stand, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God.

Doesn't say "by faith alone" but does say "by faith."

Veritas Muy
@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: Doesn't say "by faith alone" but does say "by faith." -- ME: When someone makes a statement of fact and then puts a [PERIOD] at the end of the sentence, that means nothing else is to be added. For instance, in John 3:15-18,36 Jesus states a fact: those that BELIEVE (faith) that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah sent from God, HAVE Eternal Life -- and those that DO NOT BELIEVE (no faith) in the Son of God/Messiah receive the wrath of GOD/damnation [PERIOD].

Jesus' statement means ETERNAL LIFE = FAITH ALONE. Jesus' statement DOES NOT mean that "Eternal Life = faith + good works + confessing every sin to a Roman priest + acts of penance + an unspecified amount of time in purgatory for "purification"" If those things were part of receiving Eternal Life, then Jesus would have listed them in John 3:15-18,36 and John 6:28-29,40,47, etc.

Veritas Muy
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Here is a simple example: If I tell you that you will receive $1million if you will tap your head 7 times [PERIOD]. Would you be upset if after you tapped your head 7 times and wanted to receive your money, I then told you that what a REALLY meant was that you would receive $1million if you tapped your head 7 times + rubbed your belly 4 times + did the hokey pokey + had your dog step on a bee ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veritas Muy Oh, Romans 5 says "faith" ... and does not mention works.

John 3 also says "faith" - and very clearly refers to works a few verses down.

But the parallel is faulty insofar as the Bible is not God speaking directly to each one of us, and meant to be understood by everyone without explanation. We have on the contrary clear examples of at least OT (which was already "Bible") needing explanation, both by Christ and by St. Philip.

Hence, if some Catholic hearing the Romans 5 in a reading, claimed "hullo, it doesn't mention works here, why do I need to keep the commandments to stay in a state of grace?" (to stay saved!) his priest would probably tell him that as per John 3, the faith that really saves is an obedient faith, and that means works are included, and also that it says "justice" which by definition involves good works and excludes evil works.


Veritas Muy
@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: the faith that really saves is an obedient faith, and that means works are included -- ME: The Thief on the cross did not do "works" -- all the Thief did was to BELIEVE in his heart and CONFESS with his mouth that Jesus is Lord/Messiah/Savior, and Jesus said the Thief would be in Heaven that very day.

All the Thief did for Salvation/Eternal Life was Romans 10:9-10. No works necessary to RECEIVE Eternal Life. The Thief was not water baptized, did not confess every sin, did not consume Jesus' flesh/blood, did not do acts of penance, did not do "good works", etc -- and the Thief was not gonna spend time in purgatory, he was going straight to Heaven.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veritas Muy Yes, you are wrong here:

"The Thief on the cross did not do "works""

Here is an enumeration of his works, from Matthew 26:

[40] But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?

[41] And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. [42] And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.

He certainly did believe, but he also corrected a sinner (a work of mercy) and recognised his sins (a part of confession).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veritas Muy "The Thief was not water baptized, did not confess every sin, did not consume Jesus' flesh/blood"

He died during the Old Law, before these things became obligatory.

"and the Thief was not gonna spend time in purgatory, he was going straight to Heaven."

The least one could deduce from the bare text is, he was not spending more than a few hours in Purgotary, less than before the Jewish date was shifting at c. 18:00 hours. But Catholic tradition actually accords you this, Our Lord canonised him. He is celebrated as St. Dismas, one of the lesser feasts for March 25, considering it was a March 25 that the Good Friday took place.

He accepted his cross (very literally so), even if it was just an hour or less before he died.


Veritas Muy
@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: John 3 also says "faith" - and very clearly refers to works a few verses down. -- ME: Having to do "works" in order to receive Eternal Life is not in John 3 -- "doing Truth" = "coming to the Light" and is talking about BELIEVING in Savior Jesus. John 3:36 sums up the POINT Jesus is making in John 3. Let's read it together.....

"He that BELIEVES on the Son HAS Eternal Life; and he that BELIEVES NOT the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of GOD abides on him."

Oops, no mention of having to do "works" in order to receive Eternal Life.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veritas Muy Since you count the Sacraments of the Faith as "works", here is one of them in John 3:

[5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

And here is proof from John 3 that good works are necessary:

[19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

Also, elsewhere, in order to stay saved, one needs to bear fruit:

Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
John 15:2

In order for the first part to happen, someone needs to first be a branch in Jesus, that is be, initially, saved, and then to lose the salvation from doing no good works.

a & b
taking his three replies in no particular order. Giving one answer.

Veritas Muy
@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: someone needs to first be a branch in Jesus, that is be, initially, saved, and then to lose the salvation from doing no good works. -- ME: There is only ONE unpardonable sin that sends a person to Hell -- and that is rejecting Jesus as the Messiah/Savior (Matthew 10:32-33, John 3:36, Matthew 16:15-16, etc). ALL other sins of the entire world have been paid for by Jesus' death on a wooden cross -- see 1John 2:1-2, John 1:29. Jesus took ALL of the sins of the entire world and ALL of God's judgement for our sins, upon his own body on the wooden cross -- see John 12:31-33 -- Jesus because CURSED with our sins upon the wooden cross -- see Galatians 3:13, 2Corinth 5:21.

SIN has already been dealt with and paid for 2000 years ago when Jesus placed his sinless blood on the altar in Heaven (Leviticus 17:10-11) -- giving Believers ETERNAL FORGIVENESS for all of our sins (Hebrews 9:12,26). Doctrines that DENY the total redemption purchased by Jesus' shed blood (purgatory, etc) are the doctrines that Peter warned you about in 2Peter 2:1-3.

If Believers remain in FAITH in Savior Jesus until they physical die, they receive Eternal Life -- it is our FAITH that is our victory over this world -- see 1John 5:4-5. There is only ONE WAY for a Believer to lose their Salvation, and that is to renounce/reject Jesus as their Savior (to stop heavy persecution, etc) -- once a Believer renounces Savior Jesus, they return to Damnation, NEVER to receive Salvation again -- see Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebr 10:23-39.

The reason that UN-believers will burn in the Lake of Fire is because they have rejected the payment for their sins (Jesus).

Veritas Muy
@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: Since you count the Sacraments of the Faith as "works", here is one of them in John 3: [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. -- ME: John 3:3-6 does not mention physical water baptism. Jesus is talking about TWO BIRTHS: the FIRST BIRTH is "physical/mother's womb/water sack" and the SECOND BIRTH is spiritual/indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

In John 3, Nico asks a specific question to Jesus: Does a physical man have to climb back into his physical mother's womb in order to receive the SECOND BIRTH or to be BORN AGAIN ?? And Jesus answers that the first birth is physical and the second birth is spiritual. "That which is born of the FLESH is flesh (physical); and that which is born of the SPIRIT is spirit."

No mention of water baptism in John 3 -- being water baptized does NOT mean that you have received the Second Birth or the baptism/indwelling of the Holy Spirit -- see Acts 19:1-6.

"Whosoever BELIEVES (faith) that Jesus is the Christ is BORN OF GOD (second spiritual birth); and every one that loves Him that begat, liveth him also that is begotten of Him."

Veritas Muy
@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: He died during the Old Law, before these things became obligatory. -- ME: Even Jesus had to be water baptized according to Jesus himself in Matthew 3:13-16. John was baptizing from the very beginning of Jesus' ministry -- water baptism did not start after Jesus' death. You are saying that the Thief did not need water baptism for Salvation, but after Jesus' death Believers need water baptism in order to receive Salvation ??? Acts 10:44-46 proves you wrong. After Jesus' death, Gentiles can receive Salvation/indwelling of the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being water baptized.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veritas Muy I am sorry, but trying to pretend I know the verses of the Bible as well as you do is not my game.

As a Catholic, I know the sense of the Bible, I am not required to know every verse or how it fits in. Not as long as I am a layman, and I do not intend to become a priest.

John 3. For Greek text, both Nestle-Aland 28 and UBS GNT5 have ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, which can be squeezed into only second part referring to ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (verse 3), but the context of verse 3 should rule this out. The Latin text has nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu which clearly refers both parts to the rebirth.

Acts 10, sometimes the "res sacramenti" - the grace of the sacrament - is given before the actual reception of the sacrament. As a general rule, after Christ died we need water baptism, and the one received by Christ from St. John was in fact not identical, we now need water baptism in the name of the Blessed Trinity.

As to "only unbelief will damn you, all other sins were forgiven on the cross" I cannot go through all your verses claimed to mean that I can refer to Matthew 25 which proves the opposite. C. S. Lewis pretended the parable refers to those who haven't heard, but in that case, it would mean that those who were never Christians, but gave alms, get to heaven. I take it, this is not your position.

No comments: