Question to Protestants regarding certain Catholic beliefs

[Cis.jd]

Hello, i'm here because i'm interesting in understanding the Protestant point of view that contends with Catholic teachings. I myself was raised in a Protestant church and heard all the anti-catholic statements, I've always been one of those who wanted to refute the Catholic church however upon reading the Bible carefully, I'm beginning to think that most protestant beliefs against catholic practices are a bit wrong, which leads me here to see what your thoughts are in regards to some Biblical back up supporting Catholic practices and theology.

I'll start of with a few areas first

1. Referring to Mary as the Mother of God.
> Why are protestants so against this title, when it is actually true in away. If you don't deny that Mary is the actual mother of Jesus, likewise do not deny that Jesus was also fully God, then what is the problem? Isn't saying Mary is the mother of Jesus, saying "Mary is the mother of God"? I mean, Elizabeth said "the mother of my Lord" to her, and Revelations does talk about her in such a high fashion. Catholic's don't believe this statement means she is above or pre-exists God but just making sure that the divine nature of Jesus is not denied.

1. Praying to Mary, angels, and the Saints?
I strictly thought this to be unbiblical, idolatry, etc etc.. and this was the first immediate practice that I ventured in refuting. However, after reading the Bible I understand the side of Catholics on this.

For one, Catholics believe that asking Mary, angels, and Saints for prayers is nowhere different than asking someone in church to pray for them. I mean, if protestants cling to the "Jesus is the only mediator (which is true) between God and man" then wouldn't it be hypocritical on a protestant to ask for a fellow church mate for prayers? Does asking someone to intercede for us contradict the "Jesus is the only mediator to God" doctrine?

Now, some may say: "Well, one of the reasons why is because how can the Saints hear the prayers of millions of people around the world, in different languages that they never understood when they were alive"? Which is a logical answer.
However, all protestant churches teach how Satan goes around the world, tempting every single person around the world, through out time, and with different dialects to sin. If you believe that Satan -a fallen angel, the king of evil- has this near-omni present power, and this ability to speak in different languages to millions of people around the world then why can't you believe that a faithful servant of God (who is in heaven) can do petitioning/intercession for millions of people? Doesn't the Holy Spirit grant his servants the gift of tongues?

 

[Albion]

Hello, and welcome!

I'll start of with a few areas first

1. Referring to Mary as the Mother of God.
> Why are protestants so against this title, when it is actually true in away.

I don't know how many Protestants actually DO object to this title. I don't. But as you said, it's a matter of what is meant by the title. I understand that it means she gave birth to Jesus who was God incarnate, not that it means she originated God. But there are other titles that are in common use among Catholics that do seem to me and others to be "too much," not to mention false doctrine (Ever-virgin, Immaculate Conception, etc.)

1. Praying to Mary, angels, and the Saints?
I strictly thought this to be unbiblical, idolatry, etc etc.. and this was the first immediate practice that I ventured in refuting. However, after reading the Bible I understand the side of Catholics on this.
For one, Catholics believe that asking Mary, angels, and Saints for prayers is nowhere different than asking someone in church to pray for them.

Well, we think that it's obviously different and for several very good reasons.

I mean, if protestants cling to the "Jesus is the only mediator (which is true) between God and man" then wouldn't it be hypocritical on a protestant to ask for a fellow church mate for prayers?

No. For one thing, you asked about praying to the saints, i.e. departed mortals, beings created by God. That's not what Jesus was. And second, Jesus taught that we ought to ask God for the many things people ask saints to deliver when praying to them. And third, Jesus IS our only mediator. What you're speaking of is intercession, not mediation.

 

[Cis.jd]

I don't know how many Protestants actually DO object to this title. I don't. But as you said, it's a matter of what it meant by the title. I understand that it means she gave birth to Jesus who was God incarnate, not that it means she originated God. But there are other titles that are in common use among Catholics that do seem to me and others to be "too much," not to mention false doctrine (Ever-virgin, Immaculate Conception, etc.)

I do agree that the Ever-virgin, lacks proof but the Immaculate Conception can be viewed as biblical. If you read the book of Revelation, it does hint that Mary likely had no sin at all because it did portray her as the new Arc of the Covenant.

No. For one thing, you asked about praying to the saints, i.e. departed mortals, beings created by God. That's not what Jesus was. And second, Jesus taught that we ought to ask God for the many things people ask saints to deliver when praying to them. And third, Jesus IS our only mediator. What you're speaking of is intercession, not mediation.

But isn't that what Catholics view it as, intercession? If you believe that it isn't possible because of them being departed mortals then what is the use of John 3:16 where it says "who so ever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life"? Even if they are departed from this world, since they are followers and believers of Christ then they are spiritually still alive. Prayer, and intercession isn't our physical bodies contacting the Lord but our Spirit and Soul itself is what is connecting.

The very first Protestant sects still believe these things, it's just the new age ones who reject them.

 

[Albion]

I do agree that the Ever-virgin, lacks proof but the Immaculate Conception can be viewed as biblical. If you read the book of Revelation, it does hint that Mary likely had no sin at all because it did portray her as the new Arc of the Covenant.

New Arc of the Covenant does not mean sinless from conception.

But isn't that what Catholics view it as, intercession?

You questioned the Protestant POV that Jesus is our only mediator. And you also referred to the Catholic belief concerning the saints as intercessors. Those are not identical concepts. A mediator is one who can do something about that matter as a go-between. An intercessor is simply one who pleads a cause. Jesus is, in fact, our only mediator with the Father, regardless of whether or not it is proper to treat the saints as intercessors. I mentioned a few reasons why the latter is a questionable assumption.

If you believe that it isn't possible because of them being departed mortals then what is the use of John 3:16 where it says "who so ever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life"?

That the faithful departed are conscious in the afterlife isn't the issue. It's how we approach them, how they are to be treated. We ought not--nor does the Bible give us any authorization to do so--approach them in the manner in which we approach God himself.

The very first Protestant sects still believe these things, it's just the new age ones who reject them.

I don't know what you have in mind there, but this statement--as it stands--is incorrect as concerns the first Protestants and their churches today. Or for that matter, as regards the later Protestant church bodies, too.

 

[Cis.jd]

New Arc of the Covenant does not mean sinless from conception.

So what does the "new Arc of the Covenant" supposed to symbolize, just a regular carrier? The Arc of the Covenant was strictly "stain free" and she is spoken in relation to that. We can just downplay the symbology given to her in revelation, because the gospel of Luke also states she was full of grace (kecharitomene).

You questioned the Protestant POV that Jesus is our only mediator. And you also referred to the Catholic belief concerning the saints as intercessors. Those are not identical concepts. A mediator is one who can do something about that matter as a go-between. An intercessor is simply one who pleads a cause. Jesus is, in fact, our only mediator with the Father, regardless of whether or not it is proper to treat the saints as intercessors. I mentioned a few reasons why the latter is a questionable assumption.

That the faithful departed are conscious in the afterlife isn't the issue. It's how we approach them, how they are to be treated. We ought not--nor does the Bible give us any authorization to do so--approach them in the manner in which we approach God himself.


I don't know what you have in mind there, but this statement--as it stands--is incorrect as concerns the first Protestants and their churches today. Or for that matter, as regards the later Protestant church bodies, too.

No. I never said "Jesus is our only mediator", i'm just quoting the common protestant arguments. Most Protestants i've known use "Jesus is the only mediator" whenever the topic of praying to saints is brought up. I do understand your conception, i do agree that there are common peasant catholics who do take it too far, but i'm just clarifying the actual way it was supposed to be practiced, which is just for the sake of getting prayers.

 

[Albion]

So what does the "new Arc of the Covenant" supposed to symbolize, just a regular carrier?

You're making an important connection or comparison, but I don't see any reason to define it as the Immaculate Conception. Even if it were safe to say that this proves Mary's sinlessness at some point in her life, the notion that it comes from an Immaculate Conception is without foundation.

because the gospel of Luke also states she was full of grace

Or...as the Catholic version of the Bible that I have right here translates it, "have found favor with God."

No. I never said "Jesus is our only mediator", i'm just quoting the common protestant arguments.

What you said was this: "...if protestants cling to the "Jesus is the only mediator (which is true) between God and man," so I may have misunderstood you at that point, but it still is the case that a mediator and an intercessor are two different things, so if you believe that Jesus is our only mediator, this says nothing about either your or their belief concerning prayer to the saints.

then wouldn't it be hypocritical on a protestant to ask for a fellow church mate for prayers?

Not in the least. The neighbor is not assumed to have the power that Catholics attribute to the saints to deliver what is prayed for and, most importantly, the Bible teaches us to pray for each other while saying nothing positive about, nor recommending, praying to spirits.

Most Protestants i've known use "Jesus is the only mediator" whenever the topic of praying to saints is brought up. I do understand your conception, i do agree that there are common peasant catholics who do take it too far, but i'm just clarifying the actual way it was supposed to be practiced, which is just for the sake of getting prayers.

I have to report that it is FAR from accurate to allege that it's only "peasant catholics" who "go too far." I can show formal prayers, Catholic publications, even something as common as those "thank you, St. Jude" postings in newspapers which attest to something quite different from the idea that it's only the untrained members doing something the church doesn't approve of, etc.

We've kicked this around for awhile. Do you have other areas of concern to ask about?

 

[Cis.jd]

Or...as the Catholic version of the Bible that I have right here translates it, "have found favor with God."

Why didn't you put in my complete comment which contained "kecharitomene"? Even if you have a translation that says "found favor" the original translation is kecharitomene which speaks the same context i am defending.

What you said was this: "...if protestants cling to the "Jesus is the only mediator (which is true) between God and man," so I may have misunderstood you at that point, but it still is the case that a mediator and an intercessor are two different things, so if you believe that Jesus is our only mediator, this says nothing about either your or their belief concerning prayer to the saints.

Like I said before, i'm basing this off the replies protestants give. When ever a Catholic explains that the prayers to the Saints is just as an intercessor the reply normally is the whole "Jesus is the only mediator".

Not in the least. The neighbor is not assumed to have the power that Catholics attribute to the saints to deliver what is prayed for and, most importantly, the Bible teaches us to pray for each other while saying nothing positive about, nor recommending, praying to spirits.

But why do you assume than a physical living neighbor has more power than the spiritual living servant of Christ who is in his kingdom already? I've been to protestant churches before where various leaders to the pastor would get approached with positive comments about themselves before the prayer requests -from how they moved other people from their messages from how good in heart they are, how great men of God they are- some of those leaders would even place their hands on their head to cause "healing".. yet these same people are accusing Catholics of how they attribute saints? That's high hypocrisy. How come it is all ok to say something positive towards another person because he is physically alive but wrong to a person we know is in heaven because of how they dedicated their lives for God?

I have to report that it is FAR from accurate to allege that it's only "peasant catholics" who "go too far." I can show formal prayers, Catholic publications, even something as common as those "thank you, St. Jude" postings in newspapers which attest to something quite different from the idea that it's only the untrained members doing something the church doesn't approve of, etc.

I had a friend who wrote for his church's paper, and how he thanks and admires his core group leaders and the youth pastors because of how powerful their prayers were. I guess that is wrong too. Just because Catholics give thanks to the assisted prayers and tag it along with positive titles from the saints doesn't mean we don't give God greater gratitude.

Take a look at the Jews they themselves ask for Elijah and various prophets for prayers and this was practiced ever since the time of Jesus. Even the first Protestant denominations believe it, the only people think their is something wrong with it are protestant denominations that appeared hundreds of years after the Bible was canonized.

We've kicked this around for awhile. Do you have other areas of concern to ask about?

 

[ViaCrucis]

1. Traditionally minded Protestants don't oppose calling Mary the mother of God, just the opposite, we are absolutely emphatic that she is the mother of God. Rejection of this largely stems from a Neo-Protestant mindset that has forgotten the historical context of the Christological controversies of the 5th century and only thinks of this as a "Catholic thing". A theologically literate Protestant should never reject the fact that Mary is, in fact, the mother of God. Because Mary, as the mother of Christ, is the mother of Christ-God.

2. From a Lutheran perspective we don't petition the saints and angels to pray for us because it is seen as inappropriate, and the potential for serious error--from the perspective of the framers of our Confessions--arises when it is seen as a requirement. This does not mean that we deny that the saints and angels pray for us, on the contrary we acknowledge that the saints and angels do indeed pray for us.

We also believe there is proper honor to be given to the saints:

"Our Confession approves honors to the saints. For here a threefold honor is to be approved. The first is thanksgiving. For we ought to give thanks to God because He has shown examples of mercy; because He has shown that He wishes to save men; because He has given teachers or other gifts to the Church. And these gifts, as they are the greatest, should be amplified, and the saints themselves should be praised, who have faithfully used these gifts, just as Christ praises faithful business-men, 5] Matt. 25:21, 23. The second service is the strengthening of our faith; when we see the denial forgiven Peter, we also are encouraged to believe the more that grace 6] truly superabounds over sin, Rom. 5:20. The third honor is the imitation, first, of faith, then of the other virtues, which every one should imitate according to his calling. 7] These true honors the adversaries do not require. They dispute only concerning invocation, which, even though it would have no danger, nevertheless is not necessary." - Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XXI

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sunlover1]

Hello, i'm here because i'm interesting in understanding the Protestant point of view that contends with Catholic teachings. I myself was raised in a Protestant church and heard all the anti-catholic statements, I've always been one of those who wanted to refute the Catholic church however upon reading the Bible carefully, I'm beginning to think that most protestant beliefs against catholic practices are a bit wrong, which leads me here to see what your thoughts are in regards to some Biblical back up supporting Catholic practices and theology.

I'll start of with a few areas first

1. Referring to Mary as the Mother of God.
> Why are protestants so against this title, when it is actually true in away. If you don't deny that Mary is the actual mother of Jesus, likewise do not deny that Jesus was also fully God, then what is the problem? Isn't saying Mary is the mother of Jesus, saying "Mary is the mother of God"? I mean, Elizabeth said "the mother of my Lord" to her, and Revelations does talk about her in such a high fashion. Catholic's don't believe this statement means she is above or pre-exists God but just making sure that the divine nature of Jesus is not denied.

I have no problem with calling her the mother of God.

1. Praying to Mary, angels, and the Saints?
I strictly thought this to be unbiblical, idolatry, etc etc.. and this was the first immediate practice that I ventured in refuting. However, after reading the Bible I understand the side of Catholics on this.

For one, Catholics believe that asking Mary, angels, and Saints for prayers is nowhere different than asking someone in church to pray for them. I mean, if protestants cling to the "Jesus is the only mediator (which is true) between God and man" then wouldn't it be hypocritical on a protestant to ask for a fellow church mate for prayers? Does asking someone to intercede for us contradict the "Jesus is the only mediator to God" doctrine?

Now, some may say: "Well, one of the reasons why is because how can the Saints hear the prayers of millions of people around the world, in different languages that they never understood when they were alive"? Which is a logical answer.
However, all protestant churches teach how Satan goes around the world, tempting every single person around the world, through out time, and with different dialects to sin. If you believe that Satan -a fallen angel, the king of evil- has this near-omni present power, and this ability to speak in different languages to millions of people around the world then why can't you believe that a faithful servant of God (who is in heaven) can do petitioning/intercession for millions of people? Doesn't the Holy Spirit grant his servants the gift of tongues?

Jesus even made it clear that it's here on earth:
"Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree
about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

 

[Cis.jd]

1. Traditionally minded Protestants don't oppose calling Mary the mother of God, just the opposite, we are absolutely emphatic that she is the mother of God. Rejection of this largely stems from a Neo-Protestant mindset that has forgotten the historical context of the Christological controversies of the 5th century and only thinks of this as a "Catholic thing". A theologically literate Protestant should never reject the fact that Mary is, in fact, the mother of God. Because Mary, as the mother of Christ, is the mother of Christ-God.

2. From a Lutheran perspective we don't petition the saints and angels to pray for us because it is seen as inappropriate, and the potential for serious error--from the perspective of the framers of our Confessions--arises when it is seen as a requirement. This does not mean that we deny that the saints and angels pray for us, on the contrary we acknowledge that the saints and angels do indeed pray for us.

We also believe there is proper honor to be given to the saints:

"Our Confession approves honors to the saints. For here a threefold honor is to be approved. The first is thanksgiving. For we ought to give thanks to God because He has shown examples of mercy; because He has shown that He wishes to save men; because He has given teachers or other gifts to the Church. And these gifts, as they are the greatest, should be amplified, and the saints themselves should be praised, who have faithfully used these gifts, just as Christ praises faithful business-men, 5] Matt. 25:21, 23. The second service is the strengthening of our faith; when we see the denial forgiven Peter, we also are encouraged to believe the more that grace 6] truly superabounds over sin, Rom. 5:20. The third honor is the imitation, first, of faith, then of the other virtues, which every one should imitate according to his calling. 7] These true honors the adversaries do not require. They dispute only concerning invocation, which, even though it would have no danger, nevertheless is not necessary." - Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XXI

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for your reply. I am aware that the first and older protestant denominations do acknowledge the title of Mary as the Mother of God, however the most common protestants really look down on the term. Maybe they understand it to mean Mary is above/pre-existed God but that was never the belief in that title. Their theology is very problematic.

I don't claim the Catholic pov is perfect but it's just more scripturally supported than the "neo-protestant" doctrines. I have to admit that there are some things in Catholic teachings that i find hard to believe, the Holy Eucharist for example. That morphing into Jesus' actual body and blood is hard to believe, i do agree that it makes more sense to be viewed as a symbol. A symbol that should be practiced every worship service, protestants only do this once a month and it's given little value. I'm not all sold on Mary's perpetual virginity after Jesus and I don't get why it is a big deal.

I don't see or claim the praying to saints is a requirement, i have to admit that I understand how it is hard to believe but it's just hypocritical for the new denominations to claim that seeking intercession from Saints as idolatry while they actually pray for their own church members. It just strikes me how they can believe in miracles happening by the Holy Spirit working through mortal men yet can't believe that the ones who are spiritually in heaven-in the actual environment of God- can't intercede. The Angels, Saints, and us the living are all spirits... we just have a physical body.

Please note, i don't find it necessary for these things to be believed in either. I think the common denominator, which is believing in the Trinity, who Jesus is, and having relationship with God is the only necessary thing.


Anyway, my next question is about Justification. Another big debate among Catholics and Protestants. I believe in Faith and good works, and I don't understand why Protestants differ from that. I do think it is logical that a Christian is identified by the works he does... take a look at Hitler, he claimed to be a Christian but his works prove he was not. Believing in Jesus to be divine and the Christ does not make a person automatically a christian, the demons believe that as well, so did the countless murders such as the Salem Witch trials and the KKK, but I know that many people here will deny the SWT and KKK as christians because christians are not supposed to do that.. so in short, their faith/their stand with Christ is reveled just by their works. Catholics don't claim you need to do sacraments and submit to all church rituals to be saved/christians, but if a person has faith in God, and believe that Jesus is the Lord and Savior, then that person should bare good fruit from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think you have to bear in mind, Albion, the reason for turning to Mary. Traditionally, God was viewed as the stereotypic, dominant, unemotional male warrior. There needed to be a feminine component to the divine, something passive, empathic, and receptive. Mary filled that bill.

 

[com7fy8]

I'm beginning to think that most protestant beliefs against catholic practices are a bit wrong

Not all protestants have the same ideas. Also, ones who make a project of criticizing Catholicism can overdo it, misrepresenting things and then criticizing what is not even officially Catholic.

If someone is not at least as thorough to show how he or she can be wrong, then may be the person is trying to point attention away from oneself, by focusing on Catholicism.

Isn't saying Mary is the mother of Jesus, saying "Mary is the mother of God"?

Well, maybe we could say that "properly" the Bible calls Jesus "the Son of God" > 1 John 4:15, 5:5. So, couldn't you say she is the mother of the Son of God?

Catholics believe that asking Mary, angels, and Saints for prayers is nowhere different than asking someone in church to pray for them.

Well, if Mary and angels and saints in Heaven are fully blessed, I would think their prayer could be more effective . . . if they are praying. But we "saints" (Ephesians 1:1) here on earth are told to pray for any and all people > for Christians and others >

Ephesians 6:17-19 says for us Christians to pray "for all the saints."

And 1 Timothy 2:1-4 says for us to pray for any and all people, I understand.

So, does anyone "have to" ask us to pray for them? And if those in Heaven are obedient, how much do they need to be asked to pray for us?

And why do ones mainly or only seek prayer for their own selves or only a few other people? Jesus has us caring about any and all people, not only getting prayer for our own selves! Matthew 5:46

And the Bible clearly says that Jesus Himself is making "intercession for us." (Romans 8:34)

So, yes, we have Jesus Himself praying for us, according to His faith and all His faith can accomplish. So, is this emphasized, then, in the Catholic teaching which you have gotten?

"Why would more attention go to Mary praying for us, than to all that Jesus praying for us can do for us?"

And if we are busy with doing the praying that God wants, how much time do we have to be asking Mary and "saints" for prayer? If they are so spiritual and obedient, why do they need us to ask them? I would think we who are less perfect would need to be asked and reminded!!

wouldn't it be hypocritical on a protestant to ask for a fellow church mate for prayers?

We are commanded, not asked. And we might consider James 5:16 >

"Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." (James 5:16)

So, we are directed by God to have mutual confession "to one another", and mutual healing prayer "for one another" . . . "that you may be healed". Here, I offer, God means "healed" of whatever in our character makes us able to sin and suffer, and "healed" more and more together with God in His own love, instead. So, if I am correct, this shows how much each of us children of God can do in prayer with God.

Does asking someone to intercede for us contradict the "Jesus is the only mediator to God" doctrine?

Jesus lives in each of us who is a child of God > Galatians 2:20 and Galatians 4:19 and 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 and 1 John 4:17. And Jesus in us shares with each of us how He is able to make intercession. As we grow in being one with Jesus in us, we function the way Jesus in us and through us ministers.

But there are people who are so busy with criticizing Catholicism, that they are not into this, because their attention is being aborted and perverted to self-righteous judging. And I have done this. I have welcome hearing of problems of the Roman Catholic group, so I could look down on them. That was Satanic of me; we need to become Christlike, how Jesus in us shares with each of us how He relates with our Father and loves any and all people and ministers God's own grace to change people to become like Jesus.

Now, some may say: "Well, one of the reasons why is because how can the Saints hear the prayers of millions of people around the world, in different languages that they never understood when they were alive"?

If God wants this, He is able to make spiritual beings able to do this, by God's ability and how He can share His all-knowing with people who are not limited to physical bodies. But does God do this? The Bible does not plainly say.

But, like I say, why would the "saints in Heaven" need to be asked and need to keep track of who is asking . . . if 1 Timothy 2:1-4 tells even us imperfect people here on earth to pray for any and all people, and Ephesians 6:17-19 says for us to pray "for all the saints"?

the Immaculate Conception can be viewed as biblical.

If I remember correctly, there is Catholic teaching which claims that Mary never had sin. And ones say this has to be so, or the sin of Mary would have corrupted Jesus. Also, ones might say that God would never live in the body of a woman who had sin.

But God can not be effected by evil and sin > James 1:13. So, if anyone supposes that Jesus would be in danger, in the body of an imperfect woman, this is not a scriptural reason to believe in the "Immaculate Conception", I would say.

Jesus Himself is living and growing in each of us who is a child of God > Galatians 4:19 < and Jesus in us is not in danger of being contaminated because of being in us who can still have sin! But Jesus in us growing is driving out our nature which is not like Jesus; Jesus in us is winning; He is in no danger!!

So, it is possible that at least certain people who claim the "Immaculate Conception" do not really appreciate who Jesus is (2 Corinthians 11:4).

Also, Jesus was not distant from women. Jesus did not fear contact with women. "Even" that women who had been a sinner was allowed to kiss Jesus' feet and wash them with her tears and dry them with her hair > Luke 7:36-50. There are, I suspect, ones who claim to be Catholics who, deeply, really, fear women (1 John 4:18); and so they have developed ideas which try to keep women away from Jesus and the Catholic priesthood. And so their fear of women is where some of their ways and ideas have come from.

But Jesus had special companions who were ladies who knew how to relate with Jesus . . . perhaps better than how the twelve apostles were doing, by trying to be greater than each other.

I never said "Jesus is our only mediator", i'm just quoting the common protestant arguments.

Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man, our Apostle Paul does say in 1 Timothy 2:5. So, don't be afraid to say what our Apostle Paul has said

I believe in Faith and good works, and I don't understand why Protestants differ from that.

Well, I think it is very easy to read and see that James believes in faith and works > James chapter two. But you might consider what he means by works which justify. He gives examples in the same chapter.

His examples are works which

(1) had Abraham in personal communication with God while obeying Him,

(2) involve helping someone who is needy,

(3) and helping God's servants.

These works involve, I consider, personal relating with God Himself, and personal involvement with needy ones and God's servants . . . in these examples, I see. So, these are of personal loving, not distant sending money or doing ceremonial religious things which are not personal loving actions.

But there are religious groups who have things you can just copy-cat, with no personal submission to and communication with our Heavenly Father, and little or no personal sharing with other people. There is more relating with explanation and books and other material objects used, than there is relating with God and discovering how to be with God and love any and all people; so their works can be impersonal, "often enough".

I see that James means works done in God's love, so that we exercise in love and become stronger and more mature in love. And this is what "justifies" us, making us more "just" the way His love in us (Romans 5:5) is so right > 1 John 4:17.

 

[Hoghead1]

Unfortunately, too many Protestants overlook the fact that much of Catholicism, especially in the doctrine of God, carried right over into Protestantism. Calvin continually cites St. Augustine as a major authority and once said he would not have believed had he not read Augustine, not the Bible, Augustine.

 

[Albion]

Why didn't you put in my complete comment which contained "kecharitomene"? Even if you have a translation that says "found favor" the original translation is kecharitomene which speaks the same context i am defending.

I think it suffices to say that there are a number of ways of understanding that verse, so it's far from a conclusive proof of something like an "Immaculate Conception," and I hoped that we wouldn't start into a "tis so" "tis not" kind of exchange over that.

Like I said before, i'm basing this off the replies protestants give. When ever a Catholic explains that the prayers to the Saints is just as an intercessor the reply normally is the whole "Jesus is the only mediator".

First, let's be clear that "what Protestants say" is terribly inexact. There are hundreds of millions of Protestant Christians and many Protestant denominations. You can find, among them, almost any idea imaginable being voiced.

But to the extent that "Protestants" say what you do here, it's because Catholic very often think of the saints and their prayers to the saints as a matter of them being mediators for us mortals...and it's clear that this is wrong, because Jesus is our only mediator with the Father.
(1 Timothy 2:5)

If it were the case that Catholics really did think that they were just asking a neighbor (albeit a dead one) to pray along with them blah blah blah, this probably would NOT be said to them so often.

But why do you assume than a physical living neighbor has more power than the spiritual living servant of Christ who is in his kingdom already?

I didn't say that and I don't assume that. But here's the answer...

The Bible advises us to ask our neighbors for prayer; it does not teach that we ought to try communicating with spirits, but rather that our Father in heaven is expecting to hear from us., In addition, we have a mediator in Christ Jesus.

It's a matter of following God's express will rather than reasoning out plausible courses of action like you've been defending.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Anyway, my next question is about Justification. Another big debate among Catholics and Protestants. I believe in Faith and good works, and I don't understand why Protestants differ from that. I do think it is logical that a Christian is identified by the works he does... take a look at Hitler, he claimed to be a Christian but his works prove he was not. Believing in Jesus to be divine and the Christ does not make a person automatically a christian, the demons believe that as well, so did the countless murders such as the Salem Witch trials and the KKK, but I know that many people here will deny the SWT and KKK as christians because christians are not supposed to do that.. so in short, their faith/their stand with Christ is reveled just by their works. Catholics don't claim you need to do sacraments and submit to all church rituals to be saved/christians, but if a person has faith in God, and believe that Jesus is the Lord and Savior, then that person should bare good fruit from the Holy Spirit.

I think this demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the Doctrine of Justification--as understood and spoken by the Reformers--actually says.

Faith, here, is not intellectual assent to theological propositions, it's--to quote Luther--a "bold trust in the grace of God". Neither is the point to discredit or dismiss the importance of good works in the life of the Christian.

Here's the point: The Gospel is supposed to comfort us, that as sinners we can confidently confess that Christ died for us and that on this account we are loved by God and He is unwilling that we should go off to our own destruction. When we place the locus of our salvation on ourselves, on our actions, our thoughts, or even our beliefs, we will soon discover that there is only despair (and if not despair, then pride). Because no matter how hard we try to be righteous, we fail to be righteous; no matter how much we try to think rightly, try to believe rightly, try to act rightly we falter, we fail, we keep messing up. We keep sinning in spite of our best efforts not to. And if we look to ourselves and the things we produce of our own efforts, and if our salvation depends at all on these things, then we are completely and utterly without hope. Instead the locus of our salvation must, instead, be outside of ourselves; it's Christ, Christ and Christ alone that is our hope and our salvation. It's not our efforts, but God's promises which save us.

Of course the Christian life should bear the fruits of good works, but if we spend our time focusing on what we produce then we will always come up infinitely short and collapse into despair in the hopelessness of our sin. Which is why we must look not to ourselves, but to Christ. Christ who has saved us and is saving us, having died and been raised, ascended and is coming again. If trust in Christ, then we have the confidence, the assurance, that the promises of God which are in Christ are ours, not by our merits, but by Christ's faithfulness.

That's what Sola Fide means. It does not mean that the Christian must only sign his name on a dotted line saying, "I accept that X, Y, and Z are true theological propositions" and never again concerning themselves with matters of religion go on their own way doing everything how they want. Salvation is not "fire insurance". Instead Sola Fide is to press us on to behold Christ and to boldly confess Him and what He has done, and depend upon, trust in, hope in, Him and what He's done. It is to assert, again, and again, and again Christ.

In fact, to say that a Christian must only believe this and that other thing and be done with it is, in fact, the rejection of faith alone and to instead assert salvation by our efforts and works. That is to say, it's Law not Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TheNorwegian]

Anyway, my next question is about Justification. Another big debate among Catholics and Protestants. I believe in Faith and good works, and I don't understand why Protestants differ from that. I do think it is logical that a Christian is identified by the works he does... take a look at Hitler, he claimed to be a Christian but his works prove he was not. Believing in Jesus to be divine and the Christ does not make a person automatically a christian, the demons believe that as well, so did the countless murders such as the Salem Witch trials and the KKK, but I know that many people here will deny the SWT and KKK as christians because christians are not supposed to do that.. so in short, their faith/their stand with Christ is reveled just by their works. Catholics don't claim you need to do sacraments and submit to all church rituals to be saved/christians, but if a person has faith in God, and believe that Jesus is the Lord and Savior, then that person should bare good fruit from the Holy Spirit.

In fact, there is very little difference in Protestant and Catholic understanding of justification. During Reformation this was a really hot topic between Catholics and Lutherans. However, when Lutheran and Catholic theologian sat down to take a fresh look at their theology 500 years later, they discovered a very large agreement on this issue. Please see "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" from the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I'm not going to debate you, as I don't see that we have enough common ground even to reach a consensus. Namely, my ultimate authority is the Bible, and yours is a priest. In the event of a direct contradiction, we have no way to reconcile the two, making it an impasse. However, because you ask an honest question, I will give an honest answer. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone other than myself.

1. Referring to Mary as the Mother of God.
> Why are protestants so against this title, when it is actually true in away. If you don't deny that Mary is the actual mother of Jesus, likewise do not deny that Jesus was also fully God, then what is the problem? Isn't saying Mary is the mother of Jesus, saying "Mary is the mother of God"?

I hate the term, "Mother of God" because it puts a mortal human on a similar level to God, himself. At worst, it makes her sound like the causative agent of God, which she is not, and at best, it makes her sound like the same species (type of being) as God, which she also is not. Seeing as how Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, one could just as easily call her the Concubine of God. It gets really messy if we think of her as the Wife and Mother of God. The most technically correct thing we could call her is the mother of Jesus, because that's exactly what she was. It's the one title that most accurately describes her relationship with God. She was not the mother of God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit; she was only the mother of Jesus. Therefore, while the term "Mother of God," is inexcusably misleading, the term "mother of Jesus," is an honest truth.

2. Praying to Mary, angels, and the Saints?
I strictly thought this to be unbiblical, idolatry, etc etc.. and this was the first immediate practice that I ventured in refuting. However, after reading the Bible I understand the side of Catholics on this.

Nowhere in the Bible has any good man or woman of God prayed to a dead person without disastrous results. If you can believe in prayer to saints, then I can guarantee that the idea did not come from the Bible.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.

The dead saints have no more share in all that is done under the sun. It's none of their business, and they can do nothing about it. If I can pray to a dead man, then I might more effectively pray to Jesus, whom I also cannot see, who can actually hear and answer my prayers and intercede on my behalf. A dead man cannot hear me.

It gets more interesting when you consider that the patron saints were the Catholic answer to the patron gods of the Mediterranean cultures. The pantheon of Olympus became the pantheon of the Catholic Saints. Where each little group or town prayed to its own little assigned god, it now prayed to its own assigned saint. Even the polytheists, with their many gods, still understood the concept of an overarching God, above, but they prayed to their little gods, which seemed closer and more dedicated. If the book of Enoch has any truth to it, then the Olympian gods are merely demons, impersonating the fallen angels from before the Flood. If that's the case, then they have changed roles and are now impersonating the dead leaders of the church. The dead cannot defend their identity. I will pray, rather, to the living Christ (Romans 14:9), who is king over both the dead and the living. I will not pray to a demon.

 

[Albion]

Anyway, my next question is about Justification. Another big debate among Catholics and Protestants. I believe in Faith and good works, and I don't understand why Protestants differ from that. I do think it is logical that a Christian is identified by the works he does... take a look at Hitler, he claimed to be a Christian but his works prove he was not. Believing in Jesus to be divine and the Christ does not make a person automatically a christian, the demons believe that as well, so did the countless murders such as the Salem Witch trials and the KKK, but I know that many people here will deny the SWT and KKK as christians because christians are not supposed to do that.. so in short, their faith/their stand with Christ is reveled just by their works.

OK. I don't see anything here that's a problem.

We all agree that merely claiming to be a Christian doesn't make you one in fact. But that still leaves untouched the question about justification.

We believe that the Bible gives ample evidence that it is by Faith in Christ's own work on the Cross that justifies. The good works that--as you note--naturally are going to follow Faith, if one is a real believer and not just claiming such, do not accumulate merit in God's eyes sufficient to affect whether or not one is going to be saved. At the same time (and again you said this yourself), anyone who has saving Faith is not going to live like a heathen. That would clearly show a lack of Faith.

 

[shadowhunter]

...
1. Referring to Mary as the Mother of God.
> Why are protestants so against this title, when it is actually true in away. If you don't deny that Mary is the actual mother of Jesus, likewise do not deny that Jesus was also fully God, then what is the problem? Isn't saying Mary is the mother of Jesus, saying "Mary is the mother of God"? I mean, Elizabeth said "the mother of my Lord" to her, and Revelations does talk about her in such a high fashion. Catholic's don't believe this statement means she is above or pre-exists God but just making sure that the divine nature of Jesus is not denied.

The question is not a legitimate one. It should be stated correctly. "Since one who will not say the mantra that Mary is the Mother of God is anathema to the Catholic church, why do so many Protestants refuse to bow the knee to the declaration of the church?

Protestants understand the subtlety of Christ being God incarnate, but also understand that the particular formula is not required for faith and that it can cause confusion. Therefore more often than not we choose not to use the formula statement.

 

[donfish06]

Unfortunately, too many Protestants overlook the fact that much of Catholicism, especially in the doctrine of God, carried right over into Protestantism. Calvin continually cites St. Augustine as a major authority and once said he would not have believed had he not read Augustine, not the Bible, Augustine.

Sadly very true.