What is the Gospel?

This is a question that often recurs in my mind. It’s one of the most important questions, because there is only One True Gospel, according to St. Paul in Galatians 1:6-8. To be quite honest, I keep thinking about this question because of the fact that I am constantly met with the Protestant version of the Gospel, which is this:

“Jesus, who is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 8:58; Col. 2:9), bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24).  He died in our place.  He paid the penalty of breaking the Law of God that should have fallen upon us.  He satisfied the law of God the Father by dying on the cross.” (“What is the Gospel?” by Matt Slick, carm.org)

This is the notion of Penal Substitution, the concept that Jesus suffered the Wrath of God that we were meant to suffer, because Jesus was imputed our guilt and we were imputed His righteousness. However, what does the Catholic Church teach about the Gospel? What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

“‘But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.’ This is ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’:’ God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation – he has sent his own ‘beloved Son’.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church #422).

This is what the Catholic Church teaches as the Gospel; that God the Father sent Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He sent Jesus so that He may redeem us from our sins, because through our sins we were separated from God. Jesus offers his life as the perfect sacrifice; self-giving love that pleases the Father far more than any other sacrifice (Hebrews 9:26). Rather than this being the wrath of God, this sacrifice is made by Christ offering his life to God in obedience to His Father, while we through our sins beat, whipped, abused, and crucified Jesus Christ. It was not God’s wrath that was given to Christ; it was our wrath as we betrayed Him. Yet through this Cross Christ won our salvation. This sacrifice of Jesus was found pleasing to the Father because it was a pure offering of self-giving love, which satisfied the Father’s love, freeing us from our sins because we can now come to Christ and ask for forgiveness. Christ then is Resurrected from the dead; He defeats death and sin once and for all. “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

The Gospel is Christ Himself. Yes, the Gospel does include the method of salvation (as in the Atonement), it does include the teachings of Christ (such as the Sermon on the Mount), but these things are parts of a whole, which is the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. While it is true that we can summarize the Gospel in a single sentence (The Gospel is the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ), the truth of the Gospel is one which has reverberated throughout history. It was preceded by the words of the Prophets, and it has been followed by the spreading of this Gospel to all the ends of the Earth.

A Response to Matt Slick on Losing Your Salvation

This is my response to the article “If you can lose your salvation, then what must you do to keep it?” by Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM). I shall respond in the manner of my previous responses to other articles, in the form of direct responses to quotations in the article.

If it is possible to lose your salvation, then what must you do in order to keep it?  I’ve asked this question many times of those who deny eternal security and have received different responses.  But they all, essentially, can be categorized into two areas:  “Remain faithful,” and “Be obedient.”  Whichever position is taken, both are dependent upon man’s faithfulness and ability.

Now, I am trying to be careful here in drawing conclusions because I do not want to be mistaken in how I represent the “other” side.  But I cannot help but wonder that if our salvation depends upon us remaining faithful and or being obedient, then are we not keeping our salvation by being good?  That’s right, by being good and risking works righteousness?

Please understand that I am not saying this as an accusation.  I am only asking the questions and expressing my concern.  Again, if a person says he stays saved by remaining faithful and or being obedient to God, then isn’t he saying that he is maintaining his salvation by being good?  It is a good thing to be faithful to God.  It is a good thing to obey God.  But is this how we are saved or stay saved?  Does our salvation rest in anyway on how good we are?

This question actually is the hinge upon which Mr. Slick’s defense of eternal security depends on. As a result, how the rest of this article goes (and how people have responded to Matt’s question) is molded by the question. However, I would argue that the question in itself does not take into account certain assumptions which Christians (such as those of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, as well as of the Lutheran denomination and other denominations) have regarding the response of “remain faithful” and “be obedient”.

The worry that is being presented is “works righteousness”, which the Catholic Church and others recognize as Pelagianism; the belief that we can be saved without grace before or after conversion. Another version of this is Semi-Pelagianism, which is the belief that grace is needed before, but not after conversion. Mr. Slick is worried that the notion of “doing things to keep your salvation” is works-righteousness. However, works righteousness/Pelagianism is not the same thing as faith and works coming from God, which I’ll explain in my next comment.

Now, the question Mr. Slick asks is “does our salvation rest in any way on how good we are?” And the answer to this question is both yes and no. I give this answer because the question is framed in a legalistic context; it comes from a paradigm that God’s righteousness is performing all of God’s commandments perfectly, which is a view which most people share; I do this and God lets me go to heaven, God as the Judge. And this is true to a certain extent, we know that we shall be judged by what we do; God will reward the righteous who do works of mercy and the unrighteous who do works of evil shall suffer for their evil (Matthew 25:31-46).

However, as all Christians know, we humans cannot do any good on our own; at least, any good which has eternal merit. This is because of our nature. No matter how many things we do that are good, we are imperfect and cannot do anything to work into God’s love. So, the answer to Mr. Slick’s question is that yes, our salvation rests on how good we are, because of the fact that our works shall be judged by God. And on the other hand, it doesn’t rest on us, because we can never do one good deed perfectly by ourselves, let alone do all good things. However, when it comes to being faithful and being obedient, there is something at work within the Christian which does make what we do holy before God’s sight, and I shall explain this in my next comment.

For me, this is dangerously close to works righteousness. Also, this “maintaining salvation” teaching is the same as that held by the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon church, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses churches (among others).  Of course, I realize that just because false groups teach the same thing doesn’t mean the teaching is wrong.  Still, I can’t help but wonder if something is amiss.  And, there is another problem.

And here the cat is let out of the bag; Mr. Slick groups the Catholic Church with the cults, which is an issue I have already noted in other articles regarding CARM. Now, again, the problem of Mr. Slick’s notion regarding losing your salvation is that it his argument is against “maintaining salvation”, as a righteousness which we deserve. This is Pelagianism, which is separate from participation in salvation which is a biblical and historical teaching. The question then becomes, “how can we mortals participate in salvation?” and the response is “through the grace of God, given to men by Christ through the Cross in Holy Baptism and in the other sacraments”. The problem with pelagianism is that it denies grace, which is the only reason why anyone can do anything good at all. And this grace is what makes our works have any merit at all; because the works themselves belong to God due to their source coming from His grace. As a result, we see in Philippians 2:12-13,

“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

James 2:10 and Gal. 3:10

James 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.”

Gal. 3:10, “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.’”

A further concern I have is that if anyone were to try and maintain his salvation by being faithful/good, is he then required to keep the whole law? I believe that those who seek to remain faithful and obedient to God in order to stay saved would say that they are not trying to maintain their salvation by their works, their faithfulness, their obedience, etc.  At least I hope not.  But, isn’t a law an instruction given by God that has a punishment for disobeying it?  God commands everyone everywhere to repent, Acts 17:30.  In Exodus 20, God commands that we believe in him.  Can it be said that the command to believe and repent are laws since disobeying them has penalties?  Do you see the problem?

The argument that Mr. Slick then gives is that the Scripture tells us that we must keep the whole law in order to have salvation (or in this case, to keep it), and that laws are instructions given by God which has a punishment for disobeying it. Now, while I won’t disagree that law does have instructions and punishments, I recognize that Mr. Slick is intending to argue that faith and repentance are connected to the same “Law” in both paragraphs, and that doing the “works” of repentance and faith makes us under a curse.  I do have two issues to take up with the above paragraph. First, the verse in James is not referring to all “Law”, but to a Law which is NOT being condemned. My second argument is that Galatians is also not referring to all “Law”, but to a specific Law which IS being condemned. My first argument:

“If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.” (James 2:8-12)

In this passage, we see that the Law being referenced is the “royal law”, given by Christ, which does include the Ten Commandments as shown in the passage. It does not reference the entire Mosaic Law in this passage, but the moral commandments that Christians are to follow (John 14:15, 21; 15:10) if we are to abide in Christ. Note that abiding in Christ, in God, is extremely important as we shall see later on. Note that James is telling those Christians not “they can never fulfill the law, so rely on faith alone”, but tells them to “speak and act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty”, which is referenced in the previous chapter,

“But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.” (James 1:25).

The perfect law, the law of liberty is understood as “You shall love your neighbour as yourself”, and James says that one who follows this law, not just hearing it but acting on it, shall be blessed in doing it. This is congruent with Paul, who notes that there were Gentiles who followed the Law without knowing the written code (Romans 2:12-16). This, with the commandment to love God, fulfills the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12; 22:40). This is the Law which is blessed and NOT condemned by St. Paul in Galatians.

Now, the Law which IS condemned is that of the Mosaic Law, the Law given by Moses. While the Ten Commandments and others are shared by the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments (as well as repentance and faith) can and do stand alone from the Mosaic Law. Whenever you see “works of the Law”, this is always connected with circumcision, which was a Mosaic work. This is seen when in Romans 2, Paul refers to how the Jews would try to keep the law by circumcision and how this attempt at segregation via the Mosaic Law could not save men (as noted from Romans 2:17-28, where those who are not circumcised but keep the law condemn those who have the written code (the Mosaic Law) and circumcision). This is also seen in Galatians, where Paul has come to warn those who receive circumcision that they shall fall from grace (Galatians 5:4) which is after Paul says that the works of the Law place men under a curse. Galatians and Romans are remarkably similar in that they deal with the Circumcision party, who wish to place Gentile Christians under the law. In both instances of works of the law, Paul is speaking about the Jews and about circumcision, a work of the Law. It is the Mosaic Law that is condemned.

Because repentance and faith are a part of the Royal Law, the Law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21, Galatians 6:2), these things are not condemned but encouraged. Furthermore, Paul argues that faith is NOT the Mosaic Law as shown in Galatians 3:11-12:

“Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’”

Paul doesn’t lump faith with the Law, even though not having faith means facing a consequence. Therefore, the fact that we’re to remain faithful and be obedient (which is what Paul is talking about) cannot be the same Law being condemned by Paul, as Paul would be, in effect, saying “Those who do the Law are under a curse, but the righteous shall live by the Law (that is, of the work of faith)”. This is preposterous; it flies in the face of the Scripture, which Mr. Slick would say is perspicuous. The Scripture seems to be clear that the Mosaic Law doesn’t rest on faith, it isn’t founded on it. Rather it is founded in doing the Mosaic Law, those commandments which no one could do. Rather than faith being of the Mosaic Law, it is actually freedom from it. Mr. Slick, being a Protestant, accepts the doctrine of Faith Alone or Sola Fide. Certainly, Mr. Slick would not be suggesting that he does not rely on works-righteousness, but on works-righteousness alone? The interpretation of James 2:10 and Galatians 3:10 simply don’t mesh with the Scripture, they’re far more eisegetical than exegetical.

A confession

I’m not a very good Christian.  I know my treacherous and sinful heart.  If my salvation were dependent in any way upon my faithfulness or obedience, then I’m in trouble.  I would never claim that I was able to remain faithful enough or do enough good to maintain my position with God.  I just can’t go there.  Instead, I rely totally on him to keep me, not me to keep myself.  All that I am and all I need is found in the work of Christ.  Even my ability to believe is God’s work (John 6:28-29).  My believing has been granted to me by God (Phil. 1:29).  And, I believe because I was appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48).  Should I then stand before God and man and say that I am keeping my position with God by my own faithfulness?  This is something I can never claim.

This is absolutely true. If Mr. Slick’s, or anyone’s, salvation was dependent on his faithfulness or obedience alone, then He would be in trouble. This is the problem of Pelagianism. However, Christ’s grace elevates our works;  through the Holy Spirit given to men, whatever works we do really belong to God and have merit. These Spirit-wrought works are far superior to any works of our own, any faith of our own. It is because of grace, of the Holy Spirit, of God that we can and should have repentance, obedience and faith. This is why we’re told to work out our salvation; why we shall be judged on our works, why our works can be righteous at all. Because we’re baptized into Christ, our works are joined to Him. As St. Augustine so beautifully states,

“What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace and when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but his own gifts to us?” (Letters, 194:5:19).

Our very merits, our works, ultimately come from God. As a result, our faithfulness and obedience come from God and shall be rewarded by Him; when we do not have faithfulness and obedience, but reject them and reject God, not abiding in Christ, we are cut off, per Romans 11:20-23:

“That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.  And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”

Mr. Slick is right; no man can be faithful enough or do good enough; we cannot work into the family of God. However, when grace fuels our works and faith (which it does, per Ephesians 2:8-10), our works are actually God’s works and do deserve merit because those works are His. And these works are the works of Christ, which come from the Cross. The issue with Mr. Slick’s arguments are ultimately his paradigm; he has a legalistic view of salvation. While yes, we are judged by God, mercy triumphs over judgement (James 2:13); it is mercy, love which matters (1 Corinthians 13). This love comes from God, I agree, and it is how faith works (Galatians 5:6). Because God is first and foremost a Father, he isn’t interested in “position”. No man can claim to earn anything from God. However, a man can claim to be a son of God, thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and this sonship, this divine filiation, is how God looks at us. When we come to the Judgement, we cannot come to God with anything of our own, but with God’s love manifested in faith and obedience, which as I’ve said repeatedly, comes from God through us. This is where free will comes in; we can reject God’s love, faith and obedience and be disobedient. And in this way, we can be cut off and lose our salvation, as noted above. If we rely on “earning” salvation, we are cut off from grace (Galatians 5:4) which is only possible if you already are connected to God’s grace.

That is why I ask people who believe they can lose their salvation and are seeking to maintain it by being faithful, “Are you taking credit for your believing?”  If they say yes, they are boasting.  If they say no, then I ask them what makes them think that if God who granted that they believe (Phil. 1:29), appointed them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), chose them before the foundation of the world for salvation (Eph. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13), predestined them (Rom. 8:29-30), and said he will lose none (John 6:39), we’ll let them slip through his fingers when he said it was his will that those who believe would not be lost and would be raised on the last day (John 6:37-40)? So, how would you answer the question if you believed that you could lose your salvation?  What must you do to maintain it?  Are you being good enough?

Can I take credit? Only inasmuch as I can admit that this is my faith that I have been given by God, in the same way that I can say that my money from my allowance is mine that was given to me by my parents. If I say that it is my own faith, apart from God and His grace, then I would be boasting and I would be damned, for I wouldn’t get the point of truly knowing and loving God; I would be trying to earn Heaven, to earn His love rather than to accept it as a gift. To Mr. Slicks’ second question, I would ask the question of “if we can fall from grace, if we can be cut off, if we can go back to the mire after having escaped the defilements of the world” (2 Peter 2:20-22), wouldn’t God give us a way to return to Him and thus not slip from His fingers? This is where I point to Confession, where Christ gives us sinners a way to come to His feet and repent at His cross, where His grace forgives us and His blood washes away our sins, and where His love regenerates us and keeps us with Him. This is how I would answer the question. It is not a matter of my being good enough; it is God’s grace maintaining my salvation through the faithfulness, obedience and repentance that comes from Him, which I have accepted (which in itself is a gift of God’s grace) and which I have not rejected (which would have led me to be cut off from Him). This is my response to Mr. Slick’s article; rather than risking Pelagianism/Works righteousness, I and all other Christians who deny the doctrine of Eternal Security are simply holding to the Scriptures.

Dominus Vobiscum!

Habemus Papam! On Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ

No, it’s not an original blog post title. But it is relevant and it is important. Since the last time I wrote, Pope Benedict XVI has abdicated. He is a holy man and I respect his judgement, and I shall pray that Christ strengthens him for a life of prayer; we’ll need those prayers. May God bless Benedict and keep him always.

Now, we have our new Pope! Pope Francis. There are quite a few blog posts already in the blogosphere that explore the history behind the new Holy Father, and all I’ve seen is nothing but good tidings for the Church. Pope Francis, from what I have seen and read, appears to be a very humble and holy man, and is suited to both the Petrine Ministry and to the name he has chosen.

The usual Cafeteria and Extreme-Traditonalist Catholics have come out denouncing the Pope, which isn’t unusual. “But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.’” (Matthew 11:16-17). We will always have those who will attack the Church for different reasons, and this doesn’t exclude the Pope.

As you’ve probably noticed, the point of this blog is to proclaim the Gospel, that of the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Crucified Christ is essential to Christian doctrine and to the Holy Scripture, and the verse that defines the blog is 1 Corinthians 2:2, which you can read above on the blog banner. I believe that this quote taken from the first homily of Pope Francis is enough evidence for why I have nothing but respect for the Vicar of Christ, and why I am as equally excited and supportive of him as I was of Benedict:

“I would like that all of us, after these days of grace, might have the courage — the courage — to walk in the presence of the Lord, with the Cross of the Lord: to build the Church on the Blood of the Lord, which is shed on the Cross, and to profess the one glory, Christ Crucified. In this way, the Church will go forward.

My hope for all of us is that the Holy Spirit, that the prayer of Our Lady, our Mother, might grant us this grace: to walk, to build, to profess Jesus Christ Crucified. So be it.”

The complete homily has been posted below. I would encourage you all to read it, as it is edifying and educational, and inspiring. http://www.monkrock.com/index.cfm?load=news&newsarticle=248  

Habemus Papam!

Dominus Vobiscum!

A Critique of Todd Friel’s Commentary on Blessed Mother Teresa

Wretched is a Reformed Christian Ministry that has a radio and YouTube series hosted by Todd Friel.

Todd Friel of “Wretched”

I have a friend who posted a video of Friel talking about Mother Teresa. Here’s the link, for those who wish to hear it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rOvjEDTIdQ

I’ve listened to the video, and I have a few comments. I’ll list them in terms of the minutes of the video.

0:00-2:00: This first bit by Friel discusses the notion that Mother Teresa felt separated from God due to her committing “Works-righteousness”, which is also known as Pelagianism (the idea that our works alone can merit salvation).  Friel also discusses the idea that our works are not considered righteous before God, but are considered rags (referencing Isaiah 64:6). He then says that Mother Teresa did not do good deeds out of response to the Gospel, but because she wanted to earn salvation because she was a Catholic. Despite the fact that the Church has always pointed to Pelagianism as a heresy (and declaring us to be unable to be saved by our own merit, Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph #2010), Friel would spend his first two minutes of his video reading the heart of a woman without reading her writings or studying what the Church actually teaches and then apply that understanding to the life of Mother Teresa.

2:00-4:00: Friel then quotes from Mother Teresa who spoke about Transubstantiation and the need of a Priest with her and her sisters, and then quotes from her saying that Mary is their patroness who leads them to Christ. Despite the fact that Scripture solidly attests to Transubstantiation (John 6:35-63, 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:24-30), and despite the fact that Christianity has held this belief since the time of Christ and has professed it for 2000 years, Friel would have you distrust Mother Teresa. There is also the comment of Mary leading us to Christ, which has also been the Christian position (for example,  ”Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 24:11 (A.D. 379). ). Friel’s arguments are not against Mother Teresa, but against Catholicism. Friel continues to point out that not everyone is called to the vocation of Mother Teresa. In this instance, I agree with him completely. We’re not all called to become cloistered nuns, or nuns who serve in Calcutta. But that’s not the point of referencing Mother Teresa as an example, any more than you would reference St. Paul as an example of a good Christian whom we should emulate (as St. Paul tells us to do himself, 1 Corinthians 11:1) and then say that people are called to go throughout the world to lead Christian churches and to experience persecution. Friel is correct, but only because he misunderstands the point of referencing Mother Teresa as an example worthy to follow.

4:00-6:00 Friel continues his discussion of vocations, saying that it would be a burden to say that all people should live like Mother Teresa. And that’s true, to a point. And he does get it right about how we can serve God where He has called us, and that we cannot be good followers of Christ by avoiding our vocation. That’s also true. However, he then discusses Mother Teresa’s statement about “never trying to convert people who come for aid”, and saying that if people no matter what religion they are become better men, the sisters are satisfied. While this is an understandable objection, this actually plays right into his comment about vocations: Not everyone is called to vocally preach the Gospel the way St. Paul was. Not everyone is called to stand from a pulpit or on a streetcorner, that would be an equally heavy yoke. However, Teresa says that the sisters would witness through their acts, which is precisely what the Bible tells us to do (Hebrews 12:14). Note also that the early Christians are often recorded as having converted many not through preaching, but through their acts of love. I’d also like to ask where his source was for his quote of Mother Teresa saying that she was a universalist. However, his ‘quote’ of her saying that if a person is convinced that in their religion/church is the only way to God that they know, then God will come to them, and that if the person does not know any other way, then it is his way to salvation, seems to be an interesting quote. Why? Because we have Scriptural examples of people being led to God through other religions. First, we can clearly point to Judaism, where St. Paul was led to Jesus Christ while he was a Jew, and we know of St. Paul’s great speech on Mars Hill where he proclaims that the people are religious and that he can tell them of the ‘unknown God’ which they worship. I believe that we’d have to look at the full context of her words, but it already seems to me that Mother Teresa was thinking along the same lines; that God comes to people through all things, but leading people to the Truth which is Jesus Christ.

6:00-8:00: Friel continues his tirade regarding Universalism, pointing to a quote of a nun who worked with Mother Teresa about how they would tell Hindus to pray to their gods, or some form of that. Now, while I’d like to have the actual quote, we still don’t have an accurate look into what still went on after that person said that. However, what I can assume is that even if this were true, we wouldn’t know whether they would explain to them Jesus Christ, nor of the amount of people who did turn to Christ because of the work of the sisters (which I am convinced would have been many people, but for now I cannot say for sure). For this, I’ll admit that I do not have an answer, save that people make mistakes. Look at St. Peter, who acted foolishly according to Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, but then repented. Friel then says that Mother Teresa said that the Christian way is to love God and one’s neighbour as oneself, and that this is a form of legalism because we are bound to do this.

This, of course, ignores the fact that Jesus literally tells us that we are bound to do this, and that those who do not do these things do not serve Jesus Christ and go to Hell (Matthew 25:31-46). But as you know, Jesus preached legalism. Friel then says that the Christian way is the Gospel, it is not loving people. I would argue that you cannot separate the Gospel from loving people; the Two Great Commandments given to us from Jesus Christ are as essential to the Gospel as the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Friel says that doing these things should be a response to the Gospel, but these things are not just a “response”, but are a part. This is why we hear them in the Sermon on the Mount, and why it is by these things that we are judged. He says that commanding us to love others is a yoke, it’s work’s righteousness. First, we can point out the clear fact that this “yoke” comes from Jesus Christ, and that Jesus himself says “my  yoke is easy, and my burden is light”. Second, we can point out that following these commandments is not “works righteousness”, but is the result of us working out our salvation in fear and trembling, because GOD is working in us (Philippians 2:12-13). Our works are God’s works. Or as St. Augustine says, when God crowns our works, He is crowning his own achievements. Friel then says that the Forward of Teresa’s book states that Teresa has found six steps which anyone can follow to have peace, and this means that Teresa was teaching Universalism. Clearly, we can argue then that Jesus was teaching Universalism as Jesus was teaching us how to live and act in the Sermon on the Mount. Yet saying such an absurd thing ignores the context of Jesus’ words, in the same way that Friel is ignoring the context of Teresa’s words.

8:00-9:54: Friel then says that Teresa never relied on Christ and Christ alone, and then quotes her as saying that she thought that she should help a better (religious identity) become a better (religious identity). Again, we need the context for *why* she said this. However, the rest of what Friel quotes from Teresa (such as how aborting a child is killing God) is labelled by him as “panthiesm”, while ignoring the fact that St. Paul himself says that people are close to God (Acts 17:27), and that we are in God. And he’s saying this to Christians? No. To Pagans. Clearly, St. Paul was a Pantheist. As we can see, Friel’s comments rather tend to prove too much in this regard.  He says that Teresa is going too far by seeing Jesus/God in everyone, yet it seems to me that she was only acting like St. Paul in this regard. Friel then shows surprise at how Teresa believed that suffering pain was being involved in the suffering of Christ so that we could be closer to God, because he thinks that this means that Teresa wasn’t relying on the sufficiency of Jesus. This clearly ignores Scripture, where St. Paul says that through his sufferings he is making up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (Colossians 1:24), and where we are told that through our sufferings (or chastisement) we know that we are sons and daughters of God (Hebrews 12:4-8), and that we have been called to share in the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 4:13 & Phillipians 3:10). Friel then says that they never tried prescribing pain pills to people in their care, that they never tried to heal them. I don’t see how taking in the sick and the needy and taking care of them is not trying to heal them. The important thing is about healing them, not comforting and caring for them, apparently. That’s what Our Lord said in Matthew 25:31-46… except those who comforted and cared for others went to Heaven, and those who didn’t went to Hell. But then again, I might be wrong, Friel seems to be an expert in doing this form of work. Then he points out that when Teresa became ill, she was flown to “the finest healthcare facilities in the world”. Because she didn’t deserve to be sent there, yes? If you do good things, people are meant to treat you ill. This isn’t to say that this doesn’t happen, or that we’re to care whether it does or not, but this doesn’t feel like a real criticism, more like Friel trying to make Teresa look bad, which is what we would call “calumny” or “slander”.

There you have it, folks. A full critique of Todd Friel’s commentary on Blessed Mother Teresa, where he tells you not to follow her example, even though most of her example finds its source in Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and the Holy Scripture. While I can appreciate that he is completely convinced that he is serving Jesus Christ through his work, I will assure him that telling people that following the Words of Jesus Christ to Love God and Love Neighbour is not the Christian Way and is Legalism, or telling people that Mother Teresa was a Universalist & someone who committed Pelagianism, only serves to prove as evidence of ignorance of Mother Teresa and most importantly, of the Holy Scripture which he relies on. Mr. Friel, I would suggest that before you make a commentary judging the heart of others, please consider the Scriptures and consider doing more research beyond proof-texting.

Why are Evangelicals Turning Catholic?

This is the title of a YouTube video which I saw on Patrick Vandapool’s blog. I’ve decided to post the video here and then basically comment on each of the comments made by the people in the video. The video is of men from the “Berean’s Call ‘Ministry’”, doing a radio show. Here’s the video:

Some of the comments made:

“Now, an Evangelical, you would think, recognizes that you are not saved by works, correct? Well, that’s the gospel according to Rome! To get to heaven, it’s going to be based on your works!” 

Except in Matthew 25:31-46 the Sheep who go to Heaven are the ones who performed good works, while the Goats are the ones who did not perform good works. Mind you, this isn’t saying that the Sheep didn’t have faith, this is a clear Scriptural example of God saying that “because of these works, you can enter into my Kingdom”, or vice versa. It’s not the Gospel according to Rome, it’s the Truth according to the Holy Bible.

“Now, here’s the simple point I’m trying to make. That, an Evangelical, who believes it’s by Faith Alone, alright, who has received the Gospel, is born again because of his belief that Christ paid the full penalty for your sins, now he’s going to convert to Roman Catholicism. Even the conversion process, and it is a process, you have to be good enough, you have to prove yourself worthy to enter the Catholic Church, on what basis? Well I’m going to read here, on the basis of good works! Roman Catholicism teaches that “adult candidates for baptism must prepare their souls by performing good works”! This is on the basis of the Roman Catholic Catechism”.  

Let’s break each one down:

1. Faith alone is a man-made tradition that has no biblical or historical Christian basis.
2. Being born again, according to Jesus, is from “water and Spirit” (John 3:5), not “his belief that Christ paid the full penalty for his sins”.
3. Penal Substitution (“Christ paying the full penalty for your sins”) denies fundamental Christological doctrines.
4. According to the Early Church Fathers, catechumens (which was the name of potential converts) did have to endure a process in order to convert, and the Didache points this out. However, the false teaching presented here is that the point of doing good works is to “be good enough”, whereas the document the man quoted says that it is to “prepare one’s soul”. The New Testament is riddled with such verses that tell Christians that they are to do likewise, and even before Our Lord, John the Baptist called those who came to him to perform “good works” in order to prepare for Jesus’ coming.

” Man 1: What does that do to an Evangelical’s belief? Obviously he didn’t have a belief in salvation by faith. Why are we seeing more and more of these people? Man 2: I’ve debated two or three of them, and one of the reasons they give, ‘Well, I went to the Church Fathers! I mean, want to know what Christianity is, get back as close to the Apostles and see what the Church Fathers [taught]. Why it seems to me that they were Catholics! I mean, they had this ritual and  that, they believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and so forth. I think I better become a Catholic too.’ That’s really the basis, not the basis of truth Tom, not the basis of sound doctrine, but the basis of ‘history’.”  

The problem with the first statement is assuming that you must believe by faith alone in order to have a belief in faith. This is contrary to the Bible, where we believe in Jesus Christ, the Crucifixion, and in these things of Grace, Faith, Good Works, Penance, etc., because all of these things come from Jesus Christ and the Crucifixion. You can’t separate Grace from faith or Grace from good works, or good works from faith, any more than you can separate Jesus’ human nature from His Divine nature. The second statement’s problem is that Protestants time and time again affirm that the Bible is a HISTORICAL document that is inerrant, and often defend the Bible from atheists by appealing to historical sources and to historical copies of the Bible. You can’t separate history from this either; History belongs to God, therefore if the Historical Church believed in the Real Presence, then that’s orthodox Christianity.

The two men then discuss a debate with Karl Keating they had, saying that they would go to the Bible rather than to history to find out what the early Church was (and thus running into a circular argument). They say that going to the Church Fathers is dishonest because  the Early Church Fathers stood against “the present-day dogma of the Roman Catholic Church”, even though there are several websites such as ScriptureCatholic.com which compiles much historical consensus from the Church Fathers about basic Catholic Church teachings.  They finally make the argument that converts don’t refer to the Bible when pointing out why they converted, even though in every conversion story I have ever read, ever, from Steve Ray’s to Dr. Scott Hahn’s and to more recent converts like Jason Stellman, they reference the Scriptures repeatedly as well as the historical context for the Scriptures and for the Church.

This goes right back to the problem with Protestantism; namely, that it is ahistorical. It does not have a historical basis that goes beyond the past 500 years, and it cannot admit that. Admitting that would be admitting that it is a man-made tradition which does not have biblical or historical support and should be discarded. Protestantism will go to “The Bible Alone” (AKA, the Bible and whatever denominational lenses they use in order to interpret it, such as Calvinism), and then proceed to argue from their interpretation of the Bible. Yet when we appeal to historical sources who use the same Scriptures to support the Catholic doctrines, they refuse to accept it because they value their tradition over the Word of God and over the historically Christian interpretation of the Scriptures.

So, why are Evangelicals turning Catholic? Because they actually believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Gospel is a Historical Truth, that Jesus Christ and the Church are historical and are not “mythological” in nature. Evangelicals are turning Catholic because they wish to be the Original Evangelicals, the Original Bible Christians who still exist today and receive Jesus Christ in their hearts, and into their mouths in the Holy Eucharist.

Dominus Vobiscum!

A response to some “irrefutable questions”.

I was approached by a Protestant regarding the Catholic Church, giving the standard claims of “you have a gospel of works” and “you’re hellbound”, etc. However, the Protestant provided a website with a list of questions directed towards the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Apparently, they’re “irrefutable”. I decided to take a crack at them during my lunch and found them to be the usual kind of questions: full of misconceptions, false assumptions and bad arguments which clearly were not irrefutable. I present to you now my responses to the questions. I must point out that some of the questions within the link were directed to the Orthodox only, so I took the time to erase those and respond to the ones which addressed the Catholic Faith. Enjoy!

1) If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the “Holy See” have known?

I’d have to first ask for citations for such a claim. I am aware that Martin Luther is the one who questioned the inspiration of Hebrews, James and Revelation, even going so far as to include them in a back part of his Bible separate from other versions. Who rejected Scriptural books? Certainly not the Protestants (the Protestants did not exist for 1500 years). I’d have to ask for a clarification regarding the who’s and the what’s that are being presented in this question and other questions, as it appears that these questions are not geared towards giving empirical evidence regarding the questions for Catholics. Thus, I cannot answer the other two questions within this “question” because of the lack of information being presented in the first two questions (citations as well as identification).

2) If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

The Catholic Church didn’t give the world the Bible in 397 AD, it has been given since Pentecost. I say this because since Pentecost the Church has compiled, protected and authoritatively canonized the Scriptures that were being used by local churches at the time. Furthermore, what many different versions circulated? What did they have and what did they lack? Where is the information that can be given so I can verify the question and answer it properly?

3) If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?

Because the Catholic Church is not the “Roman Catholic Church”. In other words, the Catholic Church is not comprised of the archdiocese of Rome alone, it is comprised of every diocese that holds to the Holy Catholic Faith. This means that if something occurs in a particular diocese (or ‘church’), it is with regards to the Catholic Church as a whole. Thus, the several different councils which exist (the Second Council of Orange, the Council of Trent, and so on).

4) Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”, does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.

I don’t see where this question makes sense. Is the quote not saying “let the Church beyond the Sea, which is Rome, be consulted regarding the confirmation of this canon”? Is it not directly saying that the synod of Carthage in 393 AD was appealing to Rome in order to confirm the Canon? The quote given seems to disarm and destroy the intent of the question being given.

5) If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

The Deuterocanonicals (or Apocrypha) were not added. Note that in the African Councils and in the writings of such people as St. Augustine and St. Jerome (who translated the Vulgate at the request of Rome), the Deuterocanonicals were included. Why does the person giving this question not read the councils which it quotes in order to present other questions? I mean, this seems like a mistake given by someone who did not spend their time doing the research about the other councils which they pointed out in the previous questions. [Edit: Regarding the last part of this question, it did this for the same reason that it defined the divinity of Jesus Christ in A.D. 325 as well as other parts of the Christian faith. The only time when the faith is 'officially" defined is when either the need for clarification is discerned by the Church (Vatican II for example), or when someone is questioning a major part of the faith (Council of Trent). This is why the canon was officially defined in 1546.]

6) Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

This question has been discussed in other places such as the link I am going to give here, which provides an explanation which is far more detailed and helpful than a soundbite from myself: http://newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm However, what I can say is that both Churches accept the Catholic Canon (and have accepted this canon for the first 1000 years). This cannot be said for Protestantism. However, I would reference the link above as it provides a better answer to the question which is being asked.

7) Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?

Sure; The Canon of the Bible. The Canon of the Bible is not found in the Bible; it does not provide an explicit list of what is or what isn’t Scripture. Furthermore, it is Apostolic, as those who determined the Canon held the Apostolic authority necessary in order to confirm this canon. Or as Protestants often say, “the early Church discerned the canon”. Again, Written Scripture does not provide a basis for the Canon. It provides us with the Torah (which was exclusively used by Sadducees and Samaritans, who rejected the modern Jewish Bible and Protestant Old Testament) and with an affirmation of St. Paul’s writings, though not a list of which ones (As we know of letters that exist from Paul which were lost and did not make it into the Canon).

8) If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

I’m not sure the person writing these questions understands what the Catholic Church teaches regarding private interpretation. According to the Church, the Catechism  in Paragraph #94 points out that Christians should spend their time reading Scripture and studying it and Paragraph #85 points out that the Magisterium holds this ability authoritatively. To explain, it means that Christians can learn and interpret the Bible, but not against or away from the Church. This would be similar to Protestantism saying that you can research the Bible and study it, but you cannot reject the Five Solas (or TULIP if you’re a Calvinist, etc.). The concept of a church providing authoritative interpretations and having members check their understanding of Scripture against them is common in liturgical churches such as in the Reformed and Lutheran Churches (thus the different Catechisms). In the same way, Catholics can study the Bible and check it against the authoritative interpretation of the Church. Thus, if someone interprets the Bible and thinks that it says that Jesus isn’t God, or that God isn’t a Trinity, or that Baptism isn’t regenerative, or that Mary isn’t Jesus’ mother or any such thing, they must come to the Church who shall correct their false interpretation. I know which Apostolic Tradition is correct due to the deposit of faith which has been taught for the past 2000 years and written about by faithful members of the Church who have explored and taught and defended and died for this apostolic tradition (also known as the Gospel).

9) Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?

Why would God need to provide a list? Did Israel work on Sola Scriptura as well? And where is this list that Israel has? I don’t see where this list is or why it was given to Israel after the destruction of the Temple. The problem is that the person giving these questions clearly asks things that seem to assume rather than to prove.

10) How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?

Many didn’t; There were three different understandings of the Jewish canon (Sadduccees and Pharisees and even today with the Ethiopian Jews who hold to the Septuagint (or Catholic/Orthodox) Canon. Many Jews rejected Kings and Isaiah precisely because these books condemned their sins. Those who accepted the books did so on the authority of their own Magisterium (as in the leaders) Why would they need to “know these books”? Where does this question irrefutably damage the Catholic or Orthodox position?

11) If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general? If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?

What doctrines do they teach that are so different as to the schism? Does the writer of these questions even have an inkling about why the Schism occurred and what the reasons where? Does the author not take the time to look at how much time the two Churches have spent working towards this communion? The Catholic Church (and many members of the Orthodox Church) accept each other as valid Churches and work towards unity. And where is this list of theological errors made by the Pope and the Church? Why does the author make such audacious claims without providing any evidence in order to substantiate such claims? This question only seems to serve as evidence of someone who does not understand even to a slight bit what the issue was regarding the Schism and how it is being resolved.

12) Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that “without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone”. These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a “drink of milk and honey” then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these “observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law”. Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the “apostolic tradition” was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don’t the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?

Oral “small t” traditions do not = Apostolic Tradition. This is where we have a problem of terminology; the person does not understand what Sacred Tradition is or what the difference is between Tradition and “small-t” traditions. First, from the Catechism:

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

Furthermore, Jerome actually writes this in the work which was quoted:

“Thirsty men in their dreams eagerly gulp down the water of the stream, and the more they drink the thirstier they are. In the same way you appear to me to have searched everywhere for arguments against the point I raised, and yet to be as far as ever from being satisfied. Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance4087the practice of dipping the head three times in the laver, and then, after leaving the water, of4088tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy;4089and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord’s day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked.”

Note that Jerome was writing regarding Baptism and other traditions saying that they do not need to be validated with Scripture in order to be accepted. Is this not a perfect ECF condemnation of Sola Scriptura? If you wish to use this passage, it proves too much; it proves that the Christian Church did not accept Sola Scriptura but was taught to hold to both Scripture AND Tradition as having equal authority.

13) Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn’t this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

Remember that the Churches existed for 1000 years; and the Catholic Church accepts the Orthodox as having Succession (and many Orthodox likewise consider the Church in the same manner). It proves succession by pointing to the Greek Orthodox Church which is accepted by the Catholic Church as having that succession which is pointed out. This question merely proves rather than disproving what the claim entails.

14) When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: “the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, ‘Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh” Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

Scripture tradition? I’ve never heard of such a phrase used like this, though this proves far more than you would like. The Bible calls Scripture a product of Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, which says that we are to hold to the traditions given to use by the Apostles, whether they are SPOKEN or WRITTEN. The Verse proves that there is an existence of both, and that Scripture comes from the Apostolic Tradition (which the Church teaches). Yes, Scripture is a part of Apostolic Tradition, as St. Athanasius proves and as the Church teaches in CCC Paragraph # 81-83:

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

We don’t assume that tradition = oral tradition, we assume that Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition, as the person asking this question has just admitted.

15) The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

No one denies that the Scriptures are clear (Except St. Peter who writes that Paul’s writings are hard to understand and that the unstable and ignorant twist them and the other Scriptures, and that private interpretation does not lead to prophecy from Sacred Scripture). However, you’d have to provide historical evidence for the Early Church Fathers accepting the perspicuity of Scripture argument. Mind you, no one seriously denies that the Scriptures are clear, we simply deny that you can rely on yourself and the Scriptures alone in order to interpret them correctly. Note 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Ephesians 4:11-14 and their similarity of words. God gave us teachers and apostles and pastors to use the word to aid us; this is a perfect example of Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium.

As you’re quoting Catholics, we wouldn’t say that people cannot understand the Scriptures, though we would argue that there are many people who can’t due to cultural issues and sin. My question would be to the person writing this is, “where do you see the Bible ever saying that a person should use the Bible alone, apart from any teacher?”. Does the Eunuch not turn to Philip and say that he does not know what the prophecy is about? And again, look at the verses from 2 Timothy and Ephesians for further clarification.

16) If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them, then why not the scripture? If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

I don’t see where an individual possessing a copy of the Scriptures is necessary for Sola Scriptura. Where do you see anyone making such an argument? Furthermore, you’d have to look at the Church’s writings (such as in Dei Verbum) and with the Scriptures, which point out that we individual Christians are called to study the Word and know it. To quote from Dei Verbum:

“The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the “excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:8). “For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”(5)”

I don’t see why Sola Scriptura relies on bibles in every home. The first printed bible was the Catholic Gutenberg Bible, in case if you weren’t aware. Can you provide a reason why this individual possession must equal Sola Scriptura? Does Sola Scriptura not merely require a rejection of valid authority? Clearly, one can hold to this principle and pastor a flock with it without having everyone own or read a bible; they just have to reject any other authority that comes from the Church  and thus from Christ.

17) If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?

No one would say that Sola Scriptura needs people to read. I’m assuming this comes from the argument that people didn’t HAVE bibles due to how expensive bibles were and due to the fact that Christians didn’t have the ability to read during this certain period of time. The commoner would know due to the actions of the Church; the Church is not a dead organism which works only through written documents. There are living authorities (Bishops, Popes, and so on) who take the time to deal with those priests who AREN’T faithfully teaching the Gospel and the historic Christian faith. That’s how a commoner would know. And before you think “that begs the question”, note that we’re discussing people who have apostolic authority, who can trace their succession back to the Apostles. They can also look at the Saints who would defend this faith. And there were those who could read and understood that the Church was teaching the same faith. No, a conspiracy theory of “commoners didn’t know anything and those who were literate hid it from them” is not a valid response to my statement.

18) How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?

They go and collect the documents or visit the libraries of those of the Religious life (monks and others) who protected such documents. That’s how. If they can read it would mean that they have the money for an education, which means that they have the money to find what they require. I don’t see how this is an earth shattering question, more of a waste of time.

19) If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day? (The Orthodox, are at least consistent in accepting this tradition, not that they are correct.)

First, can you prove that this tradition says this? Second, this is not a part of Apostolic Tradition but of “small-t” tradition. If you wish to understand what Apostolic Tradition is, please refer to the previous comment where I give you the quotation of what it is. Before one writes questions, one must look at why the Church does this or doesn’t do this. Would that be reasonable?

20) Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)

The succession of those Bishops who have sat in the Chair of Peter is a historical testimony to the consistency of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Church is the Church. Note that the Catholic Church does not deny that the Orthodox Church is equal to the Catholic Church with valid sacraments/succession and so on.

21) If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

What doctrines do the Catholic and Orthodox Church separate themselves on? There are very, very few that actually are doctrinal issues, and what issues that do exist are already being worked on by the Churches. Again, we have to look at what the difference is between Sacred Tradition and “small t” traditions, which is what is being confused here. No, it would not prove that the method is wrong because of the fact that the Church ran and still runs on this method since Pentecost and has defended the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The 500 year old Sola Scriptura adherents have already spiraled out of control and have hundreds of churches who claim Sola Scriptura and teach Modalism and New Age nonsense and other false teachings (as well as a false Christology). Rather, it proves that the methods are right since we have the orthodox, historic Faith which both Churches do share and do acknowledge before each other every single year.

22) If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

No. The reason why is because within Protestantism there is no single thing that cannot be questioned and rejected through the use of Sola Scriptura. Thus why the Jehovah’s Witnesses exist in the first place (as well as why thousands of Churches teach modalism and New Age ideology and bad Christology which accepts Nestorian ideas in order to reject Catholic theology). The Catholic and Orthodox Churches use Tradition AND Scripture, and thus share the Historic Christian Faith. In fact, the notion that the Churches are divided against one another runs flat once you realize that they have been working together to form unity and to deal with false teaching since the Schism. Rather than disqualifying the Churches, it validates them.

I have responded to every single one of these questions, most of which ran off of misconceptions about Sacred Scripture and Tradition and what the Church teaches about them. Other questions were based out of ignorance regarding Church history and the history of the Schism between the West and East Churches. I hardly found any of this to be “irrefutable questions that a Roman Catholic can’t answer”, more of “questions which have no merit and do not use evidence to support its claims.

Please revise your questions to use more citations and less assumptions and misconceptions, and I’ll be glad to do a round two of this. These are my responses to these “irrefutable questions”, though it only takes one response: Don’t rely on ignorance in order to evangelize.

Dominus Vobiscum!

Your Life is being Demanded of You

“And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man brought forth plentifully; and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’And he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” And he said to his disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat, nor about your body, what you shall put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.” (Luke 12:16-23 RSV)

While the RSV translation above uses the phrase “your soul is required of you”, and while that is a good phrase, I’ve grown attached to the phrase “your life is being demanded of you” that is used when rendering the verse within this paragraph of Scripture. I’ve been meditating upon this verse recently. Note what the rich man decided to do once his land was plentiful; he would rely on these goods as his refuge, as his safety net for many years of his life. He then turned himself towards physical pleasures.

This is contrary to the will of God, who then tells the rich man that his soul was required of him (or his life was being demanded of him); it was the rich man’s time to die. And all of the goods which the rich man has, God says, who will own them now? The Will of God is that whatever physical goods we have, these must ALWAYS be subject to God; they must be used to serve Him, not ourselves. However, in this life we do not care about this, and when I say ‘we’ I mean ‘me’. We end up using whatever physical goods we have as our ultimate good, without realizing that their purpose is to point to Jesus Christ, to the Holy Trinity, to God as our Ultimate Good.

By laying up treasure for ourselves, through amassing physical goods, or such things as power, pleasure, pride, we lose sight of God. We do not find our riches in the One whom all wealth is found and kept safe. We end up choosing scraps of straw instead of castles made of gold and platinum, as it were. That is one imperfect analogy to point out how much of a difference physical goods are to God and to His Will.

We’re mortal. We are all going to die at some point. This means that we, at the end of our lives and at the end of time, shall be judged by God for everything we have ever done in our lives. This is the time in our lives were we have to amass the true treasure in heaven; that of God and of knowledge of Him. And this is done through Jesus Christ; through practicing His three theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity. It also requires us to bear our crosses in life, because in this way we follow Jesus and become conformed to His Will and His Love, which is beautiful and true.

“Fool, your life is being demanded of you this very night!” This is the reality of our lives. This is the time of repentance; this is the time of knowing true joy and of following the King of Kings. This is the time to be a Saint, to be a ruthless warrior against the powers and principalities which face us in this life. We are going to be judged; our lives are going to be demanded of us. This means that we have to come to two decisions: 1) We must choose to trust in God, who shall take care of our every need as we follow Him to Calvary, and 2) we have to live a life worthy of the Gospel of which we are called to. We don’t get a second chance after this. As Our Lord said to St. Maria Faustina Kowalska in her Diary, “Write that before I come as the just one, I first open wide the gates of My Mercy. He who does not want to pass through the gates of mercy, will have to pass through the gates of justice.”

Let us walk towards the narrow gate of Mercy, to which we shall be freed from sin and saved from all distress.