anti-Catholic or not?

[concretecamper]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Thank you for proving my point.


Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. - John 3:5

For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

- Irenaeus of Lyons 202 AD

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Thank you for proving my point.


Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. - John 3:5

For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

- Irenaeus of Lyons 202 AD

This is not water baptism, but cleansing from God.
Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand this truth (v. 10), it must have been something with which he was familiar. Water and Spirit often refer symbolically in the Old Testament to spiritual renewal and cleansing.

Ezek 36:24-27 For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Christ’s point was unmistakable: Without the spiritual washing of the soul, a cleansing accomplished only by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5) through the Word of God (Eph. 5:26), no one can enter God’s kingdom.

Look at the thief on the cross for example. Luke 23:39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Was this thief water Baptist? No

What does the Bible teach? One must believe. If you do not believe, water baptism does nothing.

 

[Clare73]

(The following is an excerpt from The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16 .)
Peter is from petros, a masculine form of the Greek word for small stone, whereas rock is from petra, a different form of the same basic word, referring to a rocky mountain or peak. Perhaps the most popular interpretation is therefore that Jesus was comparing Peter, a small stone, to the great mountainous rock on which He would build His church. The antecedent of rock is taken to be Peter’s divinely inspired confession of Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (vv. 16–17).

That interpretation is faithful to the Greek text and has much to commend it, but it seems more likely that, in light of other New Testament passages, that was not Jesus’ point. In his letter to Ephesus Paul says that God’s household is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). In all four gospel accounts Peter is clearly the leading apostle, and he remains so through Acts 10. He was most often the Twelve’s spokesman during Jesus’ earthly ministry (see, e.g., Matt. 15:15; 19:27; John 6:68), and he was the chief preacher, leader, and worker of miracles in the early years of the church (see, e.g., Acts 1:15–22; 2:14–40; 3:4–6, 12–26; 5:3–10, 15, 29).

It therefore seems that in the present passage Jesus addressed Peter as representative of the Twelve. In light of that interpretation, the use of the two different forms of the Greek for rock would be explained by the masculine petros being used of Peter as an individual man and petra being used of him as the representative of the larger group.

In Greek usage,
the noun "rock" (petra), meaning stone, is feminine,
the name, Rock (petros), of a male, is masculine.

 

[Clare73]

Before Luther there was Wycliff and Johnathan Hess, among others who were persecuted and hated by the Church. Luther was simply a main focus of consolidating what others were saying, the just shall live by faith. Luther as others were saying, recognized that one cannot do good things for God to earn their salvation. This is still the believe of Catholics that, once you come into right relationship with God, you must continue to receive grace through the Eucharist and other works.

So in Catholicism, obedience after salvation is the cause of grace.

Whereas obedience in the Holy Spirit is actually the result of the saving grace of salvation.

So that where there is no obedience, there is no true (saving) faith, only counterfeit faith (Mt 7:21-23).

 

[RandyPNW]

Before Luther there was Wycliff and Johnathan Hess, among others who were persecuted and hated by the Church. Luther was simply a main focus of consolidating what others were saying, the just shall live by faith. Luther as others were saying, recognized that one cannot do good things for God to earn their salvation. This is still the believe of Catholics that, once you come into right relationship with God, you must continue to receive grace through the Eucharist and other works.

Yes, others before Luther were accused of unseettling Catholic unity and causing unnecessary division in the Church. Simply for making common translations of Scriptures, some were killed. Simply for asking reasonable questions, they were put to death by a corrupt religious court.

However, some of the issues that came to divide Catholics and Protestants were not so easily resolved. I don't think Catholics were as "Antichristian" in their beliefs about Works as Luther thought. Certainly, corrupt Catholics had a bad view of Works, thinking they could justify themselves by religious conformity and "good works." But doctrinally, I'm not sure the Catholics ever said that Works "bought" Salvation?

I probably agree with the Catholics more than with Luther doctrinally in the matter of being justified by both faith and works. It is no contradiction to me to accept the formula "Faith Alone" either. Faith is oriented towards Christ, who alone won our redemption. His atonement alone satisfies God's wrath against Man.

So Christ alone is our Salvation, and it is our faith that connects us to Christ. At the same time, connecting to Christ by faith also means we embrace him as our Savior, and deny ourselves indepenence from him. And so, repentance is built into our "faith." So true "Faith" includes the work of repentance and the work involved in our choice to live in Christ.

These things are not so easily answered. But the questions were obscured by the emotions of the time and by the particular condition of the Catholic Church at that time. It is for us now, much later in history, to re-examine the issues to determine where we, as individuals, stand.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Before Luther there was Wycliff and Johnathan Hess, among others who were persecuted and hated by the Church. Luther was simply a main focus of consolidating what others were saying, the just shall live by faith. Luther as others were saying, recognized that one cannot do good things for God to earn their salvation. This is still the believe of Catholics that, once you come into right relationship with God, you must continue to receive grace through the Eucharist and other works.

Statements such as this indicate a lack of understanding about Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther.

Wycliffe wasn't persecuted, decades after his death he was condemned, but during his life he wasn't persecuted. And Wycliffe didn't have a problem with the Sacraments.

Jan Huss believed in the Sacraments so much that one of his main issues was the lack of the Supper being celebrated in both kinds.

Luther believed that it was necessary to be on the receiving end of grace in Word and Sacrament, he condemned what he regarded as the heresy of Enthusiasm.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[HarleyER]

So in Catholicism, obedience after salvation is the cause of grace.

Whereas obedience in the Holy Spirit is actually the result of the saving grace of salvation.

So that where there is no obedience, there is no true (saving) faith, only counterfeit faith (Mt 7:21-23).

Despite the ecumenical nature of today's Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has written in the (infallibly declared) dogma of the Church that salvation is only through the Catholic Church.

VI. The Catholic Church​

20. Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.​

A Summary of Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Catholic Faith

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Catholic church is one in faith, one in sacrament, one in government.

www.virgosacrata.com

 

[Clare73]

Despite the ecumenical nature of today's Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has written in the (infallibly declared) dogma of the Church that salvation is only through the Catholic Church.

VI. The Catholic Church​

20. Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.​

A Summary of Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Catholic Faith

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Catholic church is one in faith, one in sacrament, one in government.

www.virgosacrata.com

Putting the best interpretation on that we can, we get:

all those in the church, the body of Christ, are saved.
all those not in the church, the body of Christ, are not saved.

Which of course, is not their interpretation, right?

 

[HarleyER]

Yes, others before Luther were accused of unseettling Catholic unity and causing unnecessary division in the Church. Simply for making common translations of Scriptures, some were killed. Simply for asking reasonable questions, they were put to death by a corrupt religious court.

However, some of the issues that came to divide Catholics and Protestants were not so easily resolved. I don't think Catholics were as "Antichristian" in their beliefs about Works as Luther thought. Certainly, corrupt Catholics had a bad view of Works, thinking they could justify themselves by religious conformity and "good works." But doctrinally, I'm not sure the Catholics ever said that Works "bought" Salvation?

I probably agree with the Catholics more than with Luther doctrinally in the matter of being justified by both faith and works. It is no contradiction to me to accept the formula "Faith Alone" either. Faith is oriented towards Christ, who alone won our redemption. His atonement alone satisfies God's wrath against Man.

So Christ alone is our Salvation, and it is our faith that connects us to Christ. At the same time, connecting to Christ by faith also means we embrace him as our Savior, and deny ourselves indepenence from him. And so, repentance is built into our "faith." So true "Faith" includes the work of repentance and the work involved in our choice to live in Christ.

These things are not so easily answered. But the questions were obscured by the emotions of the time and by the particular condition of the Catholic Church at that time. It is for us now, much later in history, to re-examine the issues to determine where we, as individuals, stand.

There is only one true gospel, one either believes Christ paid our penalty for our sin or we must somehow earn this salvation.

You might find it interesting that Catholics no longer preach a substitutionary death of Christ in the atonement. Instead, the atonement to them is an act of love meant to be imitated. If you take the time to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia (NewAdvent) it states this (in part near the concluding end) under the Atonement:

More recently Albrecht Ritschl, who has paid special attention to this subject, has formulated a new theory on somewhat similar lines. His conception of the Atonement is moral and spiritual, rather than juridical and his system is distinguished by the fact that he lays stress on the relation of Christ to the whole Christian community. We cannot stay to examine these new systems in detail. But it may be observed that the truth which they contain is already found in the Catholic theology of the Atonement. That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man's laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart.​

​

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Doctrine of the Atonement

In Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one

www.newadvent.org

I will caution that this article on the atonement is very convoluted to get to their final point. One has to read it very carefully. But in essence they do not believe that the Atonement was juridical but instead an act of love.

So you might ask yourself if you believe Christ's death was a penalty for your sin or whether it was simply an act of love of the heart.

 

[HarleyER]

Statements such as this indicate a lack of understanding about Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther.

Wycliffe wasn't persecuted, decades after his death he was condemned, but during his life he wasn't persecuted. And Wycliffe didn't have a problem with the Sacraments.

Jan Huss believed in the Sacraments so much that one of his main issues was the lack of the Supper being celebrated in both kinds.

Luther believed that it was necessary to be on the receiving end of grace in Word and Sacrament, he condemned what he regarded as the heresy of Enthusiasm.

-CryptoLutheran

Wycliff was tried before the Pope on multiple occasions and rejected transsubstaniation. He so enraged the Catholics that they dug up his bones and burned them. One of Wycliff goal was to get the Word of God into the hands of the people.

John Wycliffe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jan Hus, who was a supporter of Wycliff, was threaten with excommunicate. Eventually Hus was thrown into prison and executed by the Roman Catholics.

Jan Hus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At the place of execution, he knelt down, spread out his hands and prayed aloud. The executioner undressed Hus and tied his hands behind his back with ropes. His neck was bound with a chain to a stake around which wood and straw had been piled up so that it covered him to the neck. At the last moment, the imperial marshal, von Pappenheim, in the presence of the Count Palatine, asked Hus to recant and thus save his own life. Hus declined, stating:​

God is my witness that the things charged against me I never preached. In the same truth of the Gospel which I have written, taught, and preached, drawing upon the sayings and positions of the holy doctors, I am ready to die today.[35]​

Anecdotally, it has been said that the executioners had trouble intensifying the fire. An old woman then came to the stake and threw a relatively small amount of brushwood on it. Upon seeing her act, a suffering Hus then exclaimed, "O Sancta Simplicitas!" ("O holy simplicity!"). It is said that when he was about to expire, he cried out, "Christ, son of the Living God, have mercy on us!" (a variant of the Jesus Prayer). Hus's ashes were later thrown into the Rhine river as a means of preventing the veneration of his remains.​

 

[HarleyER]

Putting the best interpretation on that we can, we get:

all those in the church, the body of Christ, are saved.
all those not in the church, the body of Christ, are not saved.

Which of course, is not their interpretation, right?

They don't define the "Catholic Church" the way we define the catholic church.

 

[Clare73]

There is only one true gospel, one either believes Christ paid our penalty for our sin or we must somehow earn this salvation.

You might find it interesting that Catholics no longer preach a substitutionary death of Christ in the atonement. Instead, the atonement to them is an act of love meant to be imitated.

Amazing!

And were the animal sacrifices, the pattern for atonement, also an act of love to be imitated?

If you take the time to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia (NewAdvent) it states this (in part near the concluding end) under the Atonement:

More recently Albrecht Ritschl, who has paid special attention to this subject, has formulated a new theory on somewhat similar lines. His conception of the Atonement is moral and spiritual, rather than juridical and his system is distinguished by the fact that he lays stress on the relation of Christ to the whole Christian community. We cannot stay to examine these new systems in detail. But it may be observed that the truth which they contain is already found in the Catholic theology of the Atonement. That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man's laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart.​

​

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Doctrine of the Atonement

In Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one

www.newadvent.org

I will caution that this article on the atonement is very convoluted to get to their final point. One has to read it very carefully. But in essence they do not believe that the Atonement was juridical but instead an act of love.

So you might ask yourself if you believe Christ's death was a penalty for your sin or whether it was simply an act of love of the heart.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But I'm just dealing with characteristic beliefs here, in view of my Lutheran background judging beliefs by biblical standards, and not by standards of denominational tradition.

I know you must realize this but I will mention it anyway to reinforce the point: Biblical standards have always been subject to interpretation. One can go Lone Ranger and "interpret" on their own. Or belong to a community which will inevitable have tradition. The Catholic Church has apostolic succession and played a decisive role in establishing the canon of scripture. YES, there have been dark disturbing times with faulty leadership all the way up to recent sex sandals. In spite of that reality, the Church, the faith community, has mediated the experience and memory of Jesus through scripture AND tradition. And yet there is always need for reform, correction, critical review and difficult discussion.

 

[Clare73]

I know you must realize this but I will mention it anyway to reinforce the point: Biblical standards have always been subject to interpretation. One can go Lone Ranger and "interpret" on their own. Or belong to a community which will inevitable have tradition. The Catholic Church has apostolic succession and played a decisive role in establishing the canon of scripture. YES, there have been dark disturbing times with faulty leadership all the way up to recent sex sandals. In spite of that reality, the Church, the faith community, has mediated the experience and memory of Jesus through scripture AND tradition. And yet there is always need for reform, correction, critical review and difficult discussion.

The "faith community" consists of all those who believe in and trust on Jesus Christ for salvation.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Regardless, I appreciate your input, and as I said, I don't think the Catholic Church can be caricatured in the mold of 16th century hostility towards Luther and towards Protestants. Today, the many Catholics I've met have been good folks. Any kind of Christian can turn bad, and we should try to limit bad theology to encourage right behavior.

Some Catholics would say we have accommodated Protestants too much.

 

[rturner76]

Baptism of the Holy Spirit makes on part of the body of Christ and a Christian. Anyone can get water baptised, even those who do not believe. Water baptism does nothing if one does not have faith in Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.

Neither does a "baptism of the Holy Spirit." Have you been water baptized? What do they say? "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

• Matthew 28:19-20: Jesus commands that people be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  
  
• Mark 16:15-16: The Bible calls for people to repent and be baptized.
  
  
• Acts 2:41: After Peter spoke at Pentecost, people who received his word were baptized.
  
  
• Matthew 3:11: John the Baptist says he baptizes with water for repentance.
  
  
• 2 Corinthians 5:17: The Bible says that those in Christ are new creatures, and the old things have passed away

Acts 2:38 - And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16 - And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

1 Peter 3:21 - Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

John 3:5 - Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Matthew 28:19 - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

1 Corinthians 12:13 - For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Acts 2:41 - So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Romans 6:3-4 - Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Galatians 3:27 - For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Romans 6:4​

4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

These verses clearly state that your sins are forgiven when you are baptized. In the dozens of Bible verses I have posted so far say anything remotely like "water baptism is nice but you aren't saved until you second baptism in the Holy Spirit only. As I said multiple times. Let's keep going with Biblical proof texts:

1 Peter 3:21​

21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Colossians 2:12​

12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Mark 16:16​

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

See here, if you don't believe your baptism can save you, you are condemned. Kind od like encouraging people to forego their water baptism for this "baptism of the Holy Spirit alone" Let's keep going:

Acts 22:16​

16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Matthew 3:11-17​

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.
17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

If God the Father and the Son are satisfied with weather baptism which also baptized in The Holy Spirit why would that also be enough for you? It was good enough for our Christ. I am not trying to demean your church but you have been taught wrongly by your denomination. You seem to be living according to a fallible man's interpretation of the scripture and not the words contained within the scripture. Do not be deterred, even the original Holy and Apostolic Church has had movements within in that have later been deemed questionable. I emphasize this great number of Bible verses (and there are many more), because it has been the Bible alone that Protestants cling to no matter which particular church has misinterpreted it, the intention is still to put the teachings of the Bible first. What you are doing by claiming this second baptism is following your church leader's interpretation of the Bible over the words contained within the Bible. There are dozens of other passages that clearly state that your water baptism is sufficient for salvation. Is there even a fraction of agreed-upon scripture that declares we need two baptisms than I have posted here.

1. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Beware bretheren

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The "faith community" consists of all those who believe in and trust on Jesus Christ for salvation.

Especially Catholics for over 2,000 years.

 

[RandyPNW]

There is only one true gospel, one either believes Christ paid our penalty for our sin or we must somehow earn this salvation.

True. Of course I never implied that either Catholics or Protestants believed we can "earn Salvation." The real question was, Does Faith include Works and Repentance? I would say, Yes! Jesus said, "Repent and believe." One doesn't repent unless he first believes. So repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin.

You might find it interesting that Catholics no longer preach a substitutionary death of Christ in the atonement. Instead, the atonement to them is an act of love meant to be imitated. If you take the time to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia (NewAdvent) it states this (in part near the concluding end) under the Atonement:

More recently Albrecht Ritschl, who has paid special attention to this subject, has formulated a new theory on somewhat similar lines. His conception of the Atonement is moral and spiritual, rather than juridical and his system is distinguished by the fact that he lays stress on the relation of Christ to the whole Christian community. We cannot stay to examine these new systems in detail. But it may be observed that the truth which they contain is already found in the Catholic theology of the Atonement. That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man's laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart.​

​

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Doctrine of the Atonement

In Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one

www.newadvent.org

I will caution that this article on the atonement is very convoluted to get to their final point. One has to read it very carefully. But in essence they do not believe that the Atonement was juridical but instead an act of love.

So you might ask yourself if you believe Christ's death was a penalty for your sin or whether it was simply an act of love of the heart.

There have been several views of the atonement. I feel confident that Catholics and Protestants both accept the Scriptural explanation of that event. Certainly, more nominal Christians are going to argue the "moral example" of Christ. But I don't think this would represent the over-all Catholic view, for the simple reason is, the Bible doesn't say that.

 

[RandyPNW]

I know you must realize this but I will mention it anyway to reinforce the point: Biblical standards have always been subject to interpretation. One can go Lone Ranger and "interpret" on their own. Or belong to a community which will inevitable have tradition. The Catholic Church has apostolic succession and played a decisive role in establishing the canon of scripture. YES, there have been dark disturbing times with faulty leadership all the way up to recent sex sandals. In spite of that reality, the Church, the faith community, has mediated the experience and memory of Jesus through scripture AND tradition. And yet there is always need for reform, correction, critical review and difficult discussion.

Yes, I'm aware Bible interpretation is diverse. However, some of the diversity is due to the difference between those who have genuine faith and those who are really "imposters," who hold to the letter of Scripture without really believing in the supernatural grounding of that truth in God. A person may believe in Salvation by moral example, or Salvation by spiritual empowerment. How one believes really changes how one reads the Scriptures because those who wrote the Scriptures wrote from the "empowerment" point of view. Anything else, and the truth of what is written is watered down.

Why argue whether Tradition is relevant? Of course it's relevant. But does it preempt Doctrine? Certainly not.

So we're not arguing complete arbitrariness with respect to the truths of the Bible. Rather, we're arguing over what is explicitly taught in the Scriptures versus religious traditions that actually contradict them and override them.

There are real Christians who are not "imposters," and have real faith, but have slipped into aberrant behavior and sin. They also cannot be trusted with sold Bible interpretation because they are compromised by their own addictions and what they wish to read into the Scriptures.

So we are not just dealing with scandals or unbelief. Rather, we're dealing with Catholics wishing to blend a believers' consensus on Bible doctrine with Church Tradition.

I believe the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches both should place biblical truth, as viewed by responsible believers, on a higher priority than what their Tradition may wish to believe. After all, just like addictions, Traditions skew objectivity by promoting sectarianism, and thus, power. And power is an addiction, as well.

 

[concretecamper]

So in Catholicism, obedience after salvation is the cause of grace.

False

Whereas obedience in the Holy Spirit is actually the result of the saving grace of salvation.

False. Saving Grace? Is that sort of like wet water?

So that where there is no obedience, there is no true (saving) faith, only counterfeit faith (Mt 7:21-23).

False

0 for 3. You're out

Please stick fumbling with your own faith rather than trying to explain His Church's faith