Was Peter a Pope, at least the first?

[barryatlake]

Oh! you finally admit that Peter was in Rome, Baptist, ah I don't think so.All of the heretical groups that split off in the first century died out. If you claim that there was a line of doctrinally Baptist people going back through history to Jesus proves that you do not know Church history.

Baptists as you at times make this claim, you claim descent from heretical groups such as the Montanists (a false-prophecy movement that said the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia, on Montanus's home town), the Donatists (who said sacraments are efficacious only if they are administered by someone in a state of grace), and the Albigensians (who said there are two gods, a good god who loves us and an evil god who made the world). There is simply no way that these groups were Baptists under a different name.

Also incorrect is the notion, seriously offered by some Baptists, that the Baptists are descended from John the Baptist--otherwise, why else would they sport his title?

(This argument is analogous to the one given by ministers of the Protestant denomination that calls itself the Church of Christ. They say theirs must be the original Church because the name of the Church founded by Christ could be nothing other than "the Church of Christ." Naturally enough, this argument has not found favor with people who do not belong to that denomination.)

The truth of documented history is that Baptists are a late offshoot of the English Reformation. Their denomination was started in 1609 by a British man named John Smyth, who was living in Holland at the time. He and his congregation of expatriate Englishmen began the first Baptist church, which later relocated to England, which is why all the early Baptist confessions were drawn up in that country.

Incidentally, the original Baptists practiced baptism by pouring (affusion) instead of dunking (immersion), although most of them today vigorously deny the validity of baptism by pouring. The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, finding no one qualified to baptize him, decided to baptize himself in 1639.

 

[Yarddog]

Regardless of whether I understand the Catholic position or not, and I think I do, the teaching of Scripture is that one is justified or regarded as righteousness through faith alone (since Christ's righteousness is credited to those who believe in Him).

Nothing in scripture says that we are justified through "faith alone". We are justified through faith but we cannot separate grace from the equation. It is not something which can be obtained through works and the Catholic Church has never taught that it is.

This is the major difference between Protestantism and Catholicism as you will no doubt be aware, and the Protestant position was outright condemned by Trent, which therefore means that Catholicism teaches a different gospel - one which I'm completely sure would have been condemned by the Apostles as utterly false and ruinous, and which can't save anyone.

Unfortunately this is incorrect. It was the Protestants which taught a different Gospel and what Luther taught was also condemned by the Orthodox Church.

You clearly don't understand what the Catholic Church teaches about the subject and I would also believe that I don't understand enough about the different Protestant beliefs to make it a quality discussion but you might read the Joint Declaration between the CC and the Lutheran Church to help you understand it better so that you won't make the same mistake you made in this thread.

 

[Albion]

Nothing in scripture says that we are justified through "faith alone".

Well, that's a favorite claim in debates, but you know it's not really valid to say.

There are several verses that seem to say that (Sola Fide) point-blank. And if the specific arrangement of those two words (Faith + Alone) do not appear that way in scripture, what of the many doctrines of your church that rely upon much more convoluted interpretations of passages that don't come anywhere as close?

The Papacy is nowhere mentioned in scripture, nor the Immaculate Conception, nor infant baptism, nor Purgatory, but they are deduced from passages that don't say anything like those concepts in those particular, exact, words.

 

[abacabb3]

I have done some serious reading on this.

What we cannot argue is that by the time Ignatius was writing his letters, the church was very hierarchical, had Bishops governing regions and to do things like the Lord's Supper or baptism apart from the Bishop's consent made one a schismatic.

Now, there can be very good reasons for this. For one, the people who were not under the bishop's authority in Ignatius' time (less than a 100 years after Christ and about 50 to 70 years after the apostles) could have been real nuts, for one. Schismatics were already denying the deity of Christ and other doctrines that early.

However, things can change A LOT within even a couple of generations. Look at the difference in US society between 1955 and 1995, for example. So, the church could have changed radically from its roots, very quickly. So, we do not know if what was the norm in Ignatius' time is necessarily Biblical.

What does the Scripture say?

The Scripture itself does offer a picture of a relatively cogent church. Apostles had divisions (Paul and James, for example) and yet they came together and settled differences. We even have indications that there was Apostolic Succession, where Paul appointed men (Timothy, Titus) and in turn called them to appoint elders to rule the churches under there jurisdiction.

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you. (Titus 1:5)

We Protestants might not like this, but the Church was a centralized organization from the very beginning, with appointed (and not locally elected) leaders. The earliest extra-biblical writing, 1 Clement, appears to show that this sort of structure carried over from Paul's time to the early church.

Let's start reading:

So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.(1 Clem. 42:2-4)

It appears to me that Clement is arguing in favor of a type of apostolic succession, being that the original authority is God the Father to Christ, which was then passed on to the Apostles (with full assurance from the Son, the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit), the Apostles then appointed their "first fruits" from among the locals to be bishops/elders and deacons.

And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office.

For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably ... we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. (1 Clem 44:1-2)

The point of Clement's whole letter was to address a faction among the Corinthians that wanted to elect new leaders to replace those that were previously there, specifically when the leadership wasn't guilty of any wrongdoing. It is interesting to note that the leadership the Corinthians were trying to replace were appointed by either the apostles and others by those appointed by the apostles.

Orthodox/Catholics would argue that this substantiates Apostolic Succession as Church doctrine as it pertains to church governance. Specifically, that an outside body can take people that no one knows and just appoint them as the local leadership.

I'm not quite so sure that the reference concerning the "whole Church" approving leadership refers to the preceding. It is also possible that we are forcing an interpretation that we would get from Ignatius, which blatantly speaks of the appointing of bishops from outside the local churches. In Titus 1:5, the bishops were chosen from their local city. So, the leaders appointed by the apostles or the appointees of apostles in Clement's time were merely from the city in which they were acting as leadership.

We also have indication in the letter that Clement's position was the shared position of a good number in the Corinthian church. Those who were causing division by appointing their own leaders apart from consent of the Church and in opposition to previous appointments, were addressed as if they were a minority.

It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the very steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters.1 Clem 47:6

Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves unto the presbyters and receive chastisement unto repentance, bending the knees of your heart.1 Clem. 57:1

So, the faction wasn't the whole church here.

Is Clement acting as a Pope and laying down the law? I am not sure if the text lends itself to that interpretation either. The flow of the letter was that Clement was hoping to hear that everything would be resolved, making no papal injunctions or anything of the sort.

This being said, I'd think that Catholics/Orthodox are pressing their case too strong to say that Clement is appointing anyone over the Corinthians, because he is merely defending those locals who were already appointed the way they were always appointed. However, it does seem that the early church was unified and was still able to peaceably settle disputes of theology and governance above the local scale, just as the whole Church intervened in Acts 15 to settle disputes in three church regions (Antioch, Syria and Cilicia; which might have been the vast majority of the gentile world converted to Christ up to that time.)


So, the long short of it, I think the ideal is that we have one church, no pope, and there is something to apostolic succession...Bishops just don't have magical powers of being the apostles on earth today. They are their own men.

 

[Edward65]

The truth of documented history is that Baptists are a late offshoot of the English Reformation. Their denomination was started in 1609 by a British man named John Smyth, who was living in Holland at the time. He and his congregation of expatriate Englishmen began the first Baptist church, which later relocated to England, which is why all the early Baptist confessions were drawn up in that country.

Are you directing your post towards me by the way, because if so I don't know what relevance it has because I'm neither a Baptist nor agree with their theology. I'm in agreement with Luther, although I don't actually call myself a Lutheran because I don't want to be identified with the Lutheran churches which I have disagreements with.

 

[Albion]

Very nice treatment, abacabb3. One other factor that is never appreciated in the big rush to claim that any influence exerted by the Roman bishop amounts to proof of a universal acceptance of a Pope figure is that the Roman diocese was the largest, wealthiest, and most prestigious (for being in the Eternal City and visited by both Peter and Paul) diocese in the Christian world.

Naturally, it would be looked to and looked UP to, and its bishop, just as many nations expect more from the United States in times of trouble these days than they do some other countries of equal sovereignty.

I have done some serious reading on this.

What we cannot argue is that by the time Ignatius was writing his letters, the church was very hierarchical, had Bishops governing regions and to do things like the Lord's Supper or baptism apart from the Bishop's consent made one a schismatic.

Now, there can be very good reasons for this. For one, the people who were not under the bishop's authority in Ignatius' time (less than a 100 years after Christ and about 50 to 70 years after the apostles) could have been real nuts, for one. Schismatics were already denying the deity of Christ and other doctrines that early.

However, things can change A LOT within even a couple of generations. Look at the difference in US society between 1955 and 1995, for example. So, the church could have changed radically from its roots, very quickly. So, we do not know if what was the norm in Ignatius' time is necessarily Biblical.

What does the Scripture say?

The Scripture itself does offer a picture of a relatively cogent church. Apostles had divisions (Paul and James, for example) and yet they came together and settled differences. We even have indications that there was Apostolic Succession, where Paul appointed men (Timothy, Titus) and in turn called them to appoint elders to rule the churches under there jurisdiction.

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you. (Titus 1:5)

We Protestants might not like this, but the Church was a centralized organization from the very beginning, with appointed (and not locally elected) leaders. The earliest extra-biblical writing, 1 Clement, appears to show that this sort of structure carried over from Paul's time to the early church.

Let's start reading:

So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.(1 Clem. 42:2-4)

It appears to me that Clement is arguing in favor of a type of apostolic succession, being that the original authority is God the Father to Christ, which was then passed on to the Apostles (with full assurance from the Son, the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit), the Apostles then appointed their "first fruits" from among the locals to be bishops/elders and deacons.

And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office.

For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably ... we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. (1 Clem 44:1-2)

The point of Clement's whole letter was to address a faction among the Corinthians that wanted to elect new leaders to replace those that were previously there, specifically when the leadership wasn't guilty of any wrongdoing. It is interesting to note that the leadership the Corinthians were trying to replace were appointed by either the apostles and others by those appointed by the apostles.

Orthodox/Catholics would argue that this substantiates Apostolic Succession as Church doctrine as it pertains to church governance. Specifically, that an outside body can take people that no one knows and just appoint them as the local leadership.

I'm not quite so sure that the reference concerning the "whole Church" approving leadership refers to the preceding. It is also possible that we are forcing an interpretation that we would get from Ignatius, which blatantly speaks of the appointing of bishops from outside the local churches. In Titus 1:5, the bishops were chosen from their local city. So, the leaders appointed by the apostles or the appointees of apostles in Clement's time were merely from the city in which they were acting as leadership.

We also have indication in the letter that Clement's position was the shared position of a good number in the Corinthian church. Those who were causing division by appointing their own leaders apart from consent of the Church and in opposition to previous appointments, were addressed as if they were a minority.

It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the very steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters.1 Clem 47:6

Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves unto the presbyters and receive chastisement unto repentance, bending the knees of your heart.1 Clem. 57:1

So, the faction wasn't the whole church here.

Is Clement acting as a Pope and laying down the law? I am not sure if the text lends itself to that interpretation either. The flow of the letter was that Clement was hoping to hear that everything would be resolved, making no papal injunctions or anything of the sort.

This being said, I'd think that Catholics/Orthodox are pressing their case too strong to say that Clement is appointing anyone over the Corinthians, because he is merely defending those locals who were already appointed the way they were always appointed. However, it does seem that the early church was unified and was still able to peaceably settle disputes of theology and governance above the local scale, just as the whole Church intervened in Acts 15 to settle disputes in three church regions (Antioch, Syria and Cilicia; which might have been the vast majority of the gentile world converted to Christ up to that time.)


So, the long short of it, I think the ideal is that we have one church, no pope, and there is something to apostolic succession...Bishops just don't have magical powers of being the apostles on earth today. They are their own men.

 

[Edward65]

You clearly don't understand what the Catholic Church teaches about the subject and I would also believe that I don't understand enough about the different Protestant beliefs to make it a quality discussion but you might read the Joint Declaration between the CC and the Lutheran Church to help you understand it better so that you won't make the same mistake you made in this thread.

What mistake do you think I've made? You haven't actually told me, and I don't accept I have made any mistake. I've read some of the Joint Declaration and it's basically a capitulation by some liberal Lutherans to the Catholic position. I reject it.

 

[barryatlake]

Edward, I was answering Albion's post # 79 with my post of # that must have been rejected because it contained the true history of the 16th man-made invention of the Baptist church.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, my post of #81 answers your post of #79

 

[Yarddog]

What mistake do you think I've made? You haven't actually told me, and I don't accept I have made any mistake.

Sure I did. The Catholic Church does not teach, nor ever has, that man's works are a part of justification.

I've read some of the Joint Declaration and it's basically a capitulation by some liberal Lutherans to the Catholic position. I reject it.

I understand that a portion of the Lutheran Church does reject the JD but at least you can learn about the CC teaches about justification. The JD is a declaration of what they each believe and not that they agreed on justification. They did break down some of the myths though.

 

[Yarddog]

Well, that's a favorite claim in debates, but you know it's not really valid to say.

No it is extremely valid to say just that.

There are several verses that seem to say that (Sola Fide) point-blank.

Seem? You know that seem isn't actually saying it. Some have put their twist on scripture to make it their theology but it didn't exist until around the 16th century.

And if the specific arrangement of those two words (Faith + Alone) do not appear that way in scripture, what of the many doctrines of your church that rely upon much more convoluted interpretations of passages that don't come anywhere as close?

I understand that opinion.

The Papacy is nowhere mentioned in scripture, nor the Immaculate Conception, nor infant baptism, nor Purgatory, but they are deduced from passages that don't say anything like those concepts in those particular, exact, words.

That is not true and I have already given John 21 which shows that Jesus spoke to only Peter, though many of his Apostles were right there with them and told only Peter to tend his sheep, which we should all know who Jesus' sheep were. That is what the Papacy is about.

 

[com7fy8]

Was he really the Church's first Pope? If not, who was really the first Pope? There were bishops and deacons, but I never found the word Pope in the Bible, which leads me to believe that there were no popes in Jesus' day, at least in Israel. By the way, I know that rapture does not appear in the Bible but I believe that there is indeed a rapture. Having said that, how does one qualify as a Pope? Couldn't Paul or Silas have been popes? They too were zealous proseletyzers like Peter was.

Hi, Lik Paul says Peter was the apostle to the Jews, in Galatians 2:8 > "(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)," > and Paul, here, we can see, says he was God's apostle to the Gentiles.

But Peter started the ministration of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles > at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10); Paul was not there to start that.

But, before that, Paul became a Christian > Acts 9. And Peter was not used to meet with and ordain Paul an apostle. A "disciple" (Acts 9:10) named Ananias was used by Jesus to first reach and minister to Paul, on behalf of the church. It says Ananias was a "disciple" . . . not an apostle or pope.

Now why would God use an everyday man who was obedient, instead of Peter? Because, as we can see in Acts 10, Peter was not ready yet to obey God's plan to reach the Gentiles. But Ananias was able to hear the Lord and obey His plan for Paul.

And we can consider that Paul had the apostolic gift for ministering to the Gentiles, being ministered this by a man whom God could use. And so, when Peter got the message to reach and minister to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius, the gift of apostleship to the Gentiles was already in the church and could minister this to Peter, by faith, through Paul

So, they all did things together, ministering grace to one another, however God had this work > "Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. As each one has received a gift, minister the same to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:9-10)

Ananias possibly was an everyday Christian but who could hear and obey God, at any time. So, he was the one God used to take care of Paul's conversion and ordination.

And he like the others lived in real life with people. He did not hide in any place and hierarchy "and schedule", but was an example > I offer you that an example is a person who shares with you in your real life so you can feed on this person's example so you find out how to be real with our Father and our Groom Jesus and find out how to love while relating with any and all people. And Peter says, "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

And 1 Timothy 3:1-10 gives us a description of what qualifies a man to be an leader by example.

So, it took a while for Peter to become a real example. We see how he messed up, so big-time at Antioch > Galatians 2:11-13. But Paul was there for him, to help him to get correction.

We all need each other . . . in real life. Anyone in God's grace has His own authority with example . . . like how Ananias was able to personally hear from Jesus, Himself, and be used to do what is so important: to minister Paul into the apostleship in the body of Jesus. Any person, then, I will offer to you, Lik, can be used by Jesus to do whatever is important.

Consider how Abraham obeyed the LORD and he was told this > "'In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.'" (Genesis 22:18) So, by simply obeying the LORD, Abraham has gotten "all the nations of the earth" "blessed". I offer that this is a precedent of how any person obeying God is "important" enough to get any and all people blessed. Because when in grace you obey in God's all-loving love, you always are having an all-loving result!!!

And Jesus in you personally has you doing this . . . like how He personally communicated with Ananias, an everyday citizen of God's kingdom. You don't need a stranger in a high-up out-of-touch position to hand you a bunch of things to copy-cat, and which any psychopath can fake. Jesus in us creates with us what He wants to do with us.

Have you ever seen that "Epistle of Clement", I think it's called? Ones claim "Clement" was one of the first church popes. "Of course," Lik, this epistle says not a word about Clement and who he was. But it does provide an interesting description of who is qualified to lead God's church.

It says "we" and "us"; it does not speak as written by a single individual.

And it is easy to see that some number of religious leaders in history do not come close to meeting the description that "we" who wrote "Clement" offer, for who is fit to lead us.

But God has succeeded in all His word says, for providing us with true leaders. You can find these by obeying so you can connect personally with obedient examples who will share their real life with you > it does say to share with those who teach you - - "in all good things", we have in Galatians 6:6 > "Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches." Now how can you share in all that is good with someone you don't know personally, and you do not know his or her life and example?

So . . . God bless you; enjoy discovering whoever Jesus shares with you, to be your example and companions in His family sharing and caring love Bill

 

[barryatlake]

com7fy8, Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations....."teaching"them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11).

 

[Edward65]

Sure I did. The Catholic Church does not teach, nor ever has, that man's works are a part of justification.

Justification through faith alone is clearly taught in the Scriptures: e.g.

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3)

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)

Catholics don’t accept that we are accounted righteous by God through faith alone, and that sanctification (or resisting sin and increasing in holiness) follows on from this, but isn’t a part of being regarded as righteous. Catholics mix justification and sanctification together and call both justification, and therefore refuse to accept that justification is simply through faith alone. The result is that Catholics must believe that good works are part of justification since they believe that we aren’t accounted righteous by God simply on the basis of faith alone in Christ.

I don’t see how you can deny that Catholics believe that works play a part in justification.

 

[barryatlake]

Edward,
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]First of all, the Catholic view of salvation is not faith plus works, if by works you mean purely human efforts to win God's favor.[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin). Read carefully 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5.[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions "justification by faith alone" or "salvation by faith alone." The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]But your question deals with John 3:16. Yes, this passage does speak of the saving power of faith, but in no sense does it diminish the role of obedience to Christ in the process of getting to heaven.[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]In fact, it assumes it. Just as Fundamentalists overlook the rest of the chapter in connection with what being born of water and the Holy Spirit really means--they ignore the water part, which refers to baptism--they also overlook the context when interpreting Christ's words about obtaining eternal life in John 3:16.[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]In John 3:36 we are told, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]This expands on John 3:16. It is another way of saying what Paul says in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]Although we cannot earn God's unmerited favor by our good works, we can reject his love by our sins (that is, by our evil works) and thereby lose the eternal life he freely offers us in Christ.[/FONT]

 

[Edward65]

Edward,
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]First of all, the Catholic view of salvation is not faith plus works, if by works you mean purely human efforts to win God's favor.[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin). Read carefully 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5.[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions "justification by faith alone" or "salvation by faith alone." The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]But your question deals with John 3:16. Yes, this passage does speak of the saving power of faith, but in no sense does it diminish the role of obedience to Christ in the process of getting to heaven.[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]In fact, it assumes it. Just as Fundamentalists overlook the rest of the chapter in connection with what being born of water and the Holy Spirit really means--they ignore the water part, which refers to baptism--they also overlook the context when interpreting Christ's words about obtaining eternal life in John 3:16.[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]In John 3:36 we are told, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]This expands on John 3:16. It is another way of saying what Paul says in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."[/FONT]
[FONT=HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]Although we cannot earn God's unmerited favor by our good works, we can reject his love by our sins (that is, by our evil works) and thereby lose the eternal life he freely offers us in Christ.[/FONT]

So you believe that justification isn't through faith alone despite Paul quoting the Scripture that said Abraham believed God and God accounted him righteous because of this (i.e. because of his faith in God) - Rom 4:3. Paul clearly teaches justification through faith alone here and elsewhere, and Luther when he translated Romans 3:28 and added "alone" added this because the context required it and brought out Paul's meaning more clearly.

So can you tell me then since you believe the righteousness which saves us isn't through faith alone, what needs to be added to faith so that God regards us as righteous? If faith isn't alone what is it accompanied by in order for God to regard us as righteous?

It seems to me that you've already answered this question that it is indeed works, because you say "in no sense does it diminish the role of obedience to Christ in the process of getting to heaven" Well doesn't obedience to Christ include doing good works? Of course it does. Therefore don't you believe in justification through faith and works, which is what I've been saying that Catholics believe in?

 

[Albion]

I don’t see how you can deny that Catholics believe that works play a part in justification.

We are told that Catholicism does NOT teach that Faith and Works both play a part in salvation by the same speakers who insist that teaching Faith Alone is unscriptural and untrue. That leaves salvation by our own efforts alone, which is of course similarly denied. Yet it is now taught that even sincere and good pagans can be saved by...what, if they do not, by definition, have Faith?

 

[Edward65]

We are told that Catholicism does NOT teach that Faith and Works both play a part in salvation by the same speakers who insist that teaching Faith Alone is unscriptural and untrue. That leaves salvation by our own efforts alone, which is of course similarly denied. Yet it is now taught that even sincere and good pagans can be saved by...what, if they do not, by definition, have Faith?

Yes I agree it doesn't add up, but to be fair to those who are Catholics, such is the level of deception emanating from the Vatican that it's understandable that even very intelligent people get caught up in it, and can't see the deception.

 

[Jonathan95]

Was he really the Church's first Pope? If not, who was really the first Pope? There were bishops and deacons, but I never found the word Pope in the Bible, which leads me to believe that there were no popes in Jesus' day, at least in Israel. By the way, I know that rapture does not appear in the Bible but I believe that there is indeed a rapture. Having said that, how does one qualify as a Pope? Couldn't Paul or Silas have been popes? They too were zealous proseletyzers like Peter was.

The words "trinity" and "sacrament" aren't in the Bible either, yet they are both biblical, just like the word "pope" is.

 

[Albion]

The words "trinity" and "sacrament" aren't in the Bible either, yet they are both biblical, just like the word "pope" is.

Whether or not the word "Pope" is in the Bible, the concept of an allegedly infallible, head of world Christianity is NOT. The Trinity is well-identified in Scripture, however, regardless of what we call it.