Friendly Exchange with Fallen-Away Catholic on Savation by Faith Alone

Fallen away Catholic:

It was most refreshing [talking with you]--I didn't do a complete look at faith versus works (according to what we discussed); however, I would like for you to consider Ephesians Chapter 2 starting at verses 4 through 10 with special emphasis on verse 8.  I am sending this not in the spirit of argument but for your consideration.

Again it was enjoyable talking to you.  Best regard

I replied:
Hi [his name]

I so appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with a fellow brother in Christ.  I really enjoyed talking with you as well and anticipate some good exchanges in these emails.

I have a pretty thick skin.  I will take whatever is said here on your part as someone who loves Christ and wants to share what he has found to me.  And so, don't worry about hurting my feelings or fear of insulting me or something.  Ok?

You recommended that I read Ephesians 2, verses 4 through 10 with an emphasis on verse 8.  Well, let's have a quick look at those verses shall we.  Here are those exact verses from the NIV (its a little easier to read then the KJV) I hope you don't mind.

Eph 2

⁴ But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, ⁵ made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions – it is by grace you have been saved. ⁶ And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, ⁷ in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. ⁸ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – ⁹ not by works, so that no one can boast. ¹⁰ For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

And so we see that we are saved through faith, not by works.  Now, if you look closely Paul couldn't be talking about the uselessness of good works, ie works of God since he goes on in the very next verse on the idea the God Wills that we do certain works (verse 10).  Paul then, is referencing the works of the law (sacrificial law, circumcision and so on...) when he says that one is saved through faith and not by works of the law.

Look at verse 10, it says: "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God has prepared in advance for us to do."

Now, God has prepared in advance some good works that we are to do.  It is His Will that we do them.  What happens if we do not do the Will of God?  Answer: "‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."  (Mat 7:21)

Faith alone isn't enough, we must also do the will of God and if we knowingly refuse to do God's Will means that we will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The verse that I believe best explains the role of faith and works is in Gal 5:6

"the only thing that counts is faith working through love."

God Bless
Nathan

An On-line Conversation With a Cafeteria Catholic

Charles’, the Cafeteria Catholic, began:
The Roman Catholic Church is undergoing its greatest reform. Women will become priests. Priests will be allowed to marry. Homosexuals will be married sacramentally. Children will be conceived through artificial insemination. Masturbation will be recognized as a natural and healthy phenomena. It will all come to its greatest culmination under a female Pope. By what great awareness has this fallen upon me? The common sense that comes with being rational and a reasoning human being. The Church in all its greatness was most aware of its fallibility, and incorporated a well-known doctrine into the institution.

Nathan replies:
So now Charles knows the future.
Well, certain things that are defined as doctrine (ie. the Truth as the revealed Word of God) will not and cannot ever change because God does not change.

Here's what the church teaches:

1- Women cannot become priest just like men cannot become mothers and this will never change.

2- Many Roman Catholic priests are married even today. The church generally chooses men who have made a vow of celibacy for the priesthood but that practice can change any day. It is not a doctrine revealed by God.

3- Men with homosexual tendencies can be married sacramentally even today but can only marry women. The opposite is true for women as well because that's how God designed the male and female counterparts. They are complimentary of each other, no such complimentarity exists between two men or two women.

4- Children are already conceived through artificial insemination but that doesn't make it right. For example, 3 to 10 times more children die from the rejection of the embryo by the lab techs then there are successful artificial inseminations. These children deserve to live but died because the parents were willing to allow the deaths of so many for the life of the one.

5- Wasting ones seed (ie masturbation) has always been seen as wrong even from Biblical times (Gen 38:9-10).

Ones "common sense" can be terribly misguided especially when ones conscience is ill-informed.

To have a good conscience is to have it align with church doctrine because we KNOW that Church doctrines are always true since the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Charles answered:
I'm afraid that I cannot go there or would ever wish to. I have children watching and listening to me, especially a gay son. I teach that God is a most loving God and far more understanding than the Catholic Church teaches at the moment. But with patience and perseverance reason will win out. Those who think, keep hope alive, and education shall lead the way.

Having blind faith, is no excuse, for not thinking.

 

Here a lurker (a third-party) chimes in:
What many Catholics and most non Catholics fail to understand is that the Catholic Church welcomes homosexuals or divorced into the church. They ask no more from homosexuals than they do from single Catholics. The urge to have sex with someone is not wrong but doing so outside of marriage is the wrong part. I struggle with the logic of some of the Catholic teachings but I understand them.

Nathan replies:
Very well put [lurker].  Thanks for the clarification.

Charles then said:
The two of you are not aware that my wife's first husband tried to kill her, while high on cocaine. It was at my advice that she extricate herself from the threat of being assaulted and perhaps killed the next time. Did she know when she was a bride that 5 years later under the influence of cocaine that her sacramental partner, blessed by God, would try to kill her? No. But, isn't it reasonable to recognize that if a person tries to kill you, that perhaps they don't love you, and that in fact, staying married to that man, is not sanctioned by God? Something to contemplate.

Nathan answers:
A statement from the USCCB states this in regards to spousal abuse:

Finally, we emphasize that no person is expected to stay in an abusive marriage. Some abused women believe that church teaching on the permanence of marriage requires them to stay in an abusive relationship. They may hesitate to seek a separation or divorce. They may fear that they cannot re-marry in the Church. Violence and abuse, not divorce, break up a marriage. We encourage abused persons who have divorced to investigate the possibility of seeking an annulment. An annulment, which determines that the marriage bond is not valid, can frequently open the door to healing.

The document can be found here:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/domestic-violence/when-i-call-for-help.cfm

I hope this helps.

Charles answers:
Thank you Nathan.  I did not know that such a socially aware document existed.  I do commend our American Bishops for their pastoral understanding in this area.

Finally, Nathan replies:
You’re welcome.  I’m glad I could help.

God Bless
Nathan

Receiving Communion in a non-Catholic Service

Q.  Can Catholics receive communion in a non-Catholic ceremony?

  

R.     Catholics believe that the Eucharist is a sign of unity.  This is one of the reasons that Protestants can’t ordinarily receive Communion in Catholic churches.  The same holds true in the opposite direction:  For a Catholic to receive Protestant communion would not only give the impression that the Protestant version is valid, but it would also create a false sense of unity.  There is no true unity between us sadly and for us to receive communion in a Protestant church would be lying with our bodies.  Almost as if we would say yes by bobbing our heads up and down in the affirmative but saying no with our words.  We would be giving a mixed message, and a confusing one.  And therefore lend confusion as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the matter.

And that, my friend, is the main reason a Catholic Christian shouldn’t receive communion in a non-Catholic church.  The Catholic Church teaches in the True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, most other churches do not believe in this change.  For a Catholic to receive communion in a non-Catholic church would be saying to the other Christians of that church that he believes as they do.  The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.  Everything revolves around this fact, the fact that Jesus Christ is actually present in the consecrated bread and wine.  We would be doing a great disservice to those Christians by going along with their ideology.  We ought to provoke their thinking instead and to wake them up from their complacency by simply not partaking of communion and keeping to the truth.  In fact, we are not in full communion with each other yet and pretending that we are is not helpful for any member of His Church.

God Bless
Nathan

Anti-Catholic on Christmas

Roger said:
Do you agree with the conclusion of the writer in the Catholic paper that I brought earlier?

I reply:
Yes, I agree with the history and also agree with the author on the limits historical documents can show us about the choice of Dec 25 as the day of celebration of Christ's birth.

You see, I have no problem when one shares his opinion based on facts when they are presented as such. You Roger present your OPINIONS, admittedly base on facts, but as facts themselves. That, sir, is a deceiving way of convincing others. Is deception the way of the Lord?

Here's what I mean. In the article you posted you highlighted what you thought proved your point but you don't seem to realize that the author, who you believe to be an expert in the art of textual criticism and in the analysis of historical documents, couched his OPINION in such a way as to make clear that it was indeed just his opinion. You do the opposite, you couch your OPINION as though it was a fact. Here’s an Example:

EXPERT:
The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date.

{Strong claim but not decisive or concrete}

ROGER:
It is known history that the pagans used to worship their sun god, Baal and his son, Tammuz on December 25th. It is also known history that - in order to entice the pagans to join the Church - the Church agreed to accept December 25th as a special day of worship, too. Now, where is logic applied so far here? (emphasis mine)

{See the differance? You pronounce it as fact when even the expert doesn't claim it.)

==================

Here's another example:

EXPERT:
The present writer is inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and though the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date...(emphasis mine)

{Here again we see a possibility that his statement is his opinion and not fact}

but you say:

ROGER:
Finally you agree that December 25th was adopted by the Church as a way to attract pagans to join and stay with the new Church. Of course, this is considered to be a known historical fact.

See the differance? Whether you realize it or not you are using deceiving tactics to make your point. God does not use deceiving tactics to give us His message but Satan does. Whose tactics do you wish to use? God's or Satan's?

Food for thought.

And by the way…  We call that special celebration of God being born in the flesh as Christmas, ie Christ's Mass. The name should at least show you that we are not commemorating Tammuz or Baal but Christ.  Not idol worship but true worship of God.

 God Bless

Nathan

Answering a non-Catholic objection

Non-Catholic “Roger” states:
You have never proven through Scripture that the RCC has anything to do with the Church that Jesus started. All that you have given is
one assumption based upon other assumptions - that lead you to a
false conclusion.

I reply:
Other than the fact that the Catholic Church has believed in the True Presence of Christ throughout the centuries without break to today. And we have a written record of such a belief from the first generation beyond the apostles(Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD). So, at least, the belief in the True Presence has been in existence in the same church for nearly 2000 years. Can your belief in a symbolic presence only (if that is what you truly believe) be proven the same way?

But beyond that. To prove through Scripture that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus started, all one needs to do is look at the Nicean Creed..."I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". The Church Christ founded is apostolic. It has its roots in the teachings of the apostles for Jesus said to His apostles "He who receives you receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." (Matt 10:1,40). Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

But first let's start with Matt 28:18-20:

18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Three things to look at here in these verses. Firts, Jesus commands to make disciples of ALL nations. Jesus knew that this task was never going to be done by these 12 apostles alone. Others had to take their place once they died. Second, Jesus says that He will be with THEM to the very end of the age. How is that possible since the apostles all died before the end of the first century? That because Jesus was speaking to the twelve as the representatives of His Church. Third, Jesus sends them off with what kind of authority? With the authority of Jesus Himself. This is also confirmed in the Gospel of John, chapter 20, verse 21 which says "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."

The apostles have divinely appointed authority. And this authority is transferred to others as successors through the laying on of hands. The first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority (Acts 1:15-16). The authority of Judas' office (his 'bishopric') is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

The apostles authority was to be given to successors since Jesus' command of teaching (with authority) to all nations was a command unfeasible for those twelve alone. They had to share this authority to others to fulfill Jesus' command. They gave this authority to others through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:1-6). And this is to go on through multiple generations as shown in 2 Tim 2:2. This verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors. It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

^“22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.   (Acts 15:22-27)

Preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles. Who sent you Roger? My bishop was sent by a previous bishop who was sent by a previous one all the way back in history to one of the twelve apostles themselves. Can you claim the same of your teachers of the Word?

God Bless

Nathan