Proof texting: At the heart of the Protestant error?

Incredible as it may seem, proof texting appears to be at the heart of the 500-year-old Protestant error.

Soon, I will have the incredible propostion here.

1 Cor 9:27

1 Cor 9:27 “ . . . but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”

Catholic: This means that while alive, we should always be vigilant in our perseverance because we can never take things for granted. On the practical plane, this means not letting up on our ascetical struggle, mortifying the flesh, guarding our eyes, etc. We “ought to have the most secure hope in the help of God, who, so long as we are faithful to his grace, will bring the good work to perfection, just as he began it, working both the will and the performance (Phil 2:13), so that at the end of our lives we can say like Paul:” there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, will reward to me on that day (2 Tim 4:8).

Protestant: The prize that Paul is saying here is certainly not salvation because if it is, then, salvation becomes a prize or a reward when it is not as discussed earlier based on Romans 6:23 “ For the wages of sin is death, but the free GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Paul elsewhere talks of it as a crown. I believe that while we are saved by faith alone and salvation is a GIFT, we will be rewarded with crowns because of what we have done while in the Body. This will include our services for the believers/church done in the name of the Lord and righteous things we do as believers.

A good example here is what Paul is saying in the following verses.

Philippians 4:1 -1Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

2 Timothy 4:8 - Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
Again, if you take this “crowns” and “rewards” as salvation, then it renders salvation or eternal life as a REWARD, no longer as a GIFT.

Catholic: That’s a good point, except that Romans 2:7 clearly speaks of salvation (aka eternal life) as a reward “. . .to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he [God] will give eternal life.” Which becomes even clearer with Heb 6:10: “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints. . .”

In Mt 5:12 Jesus promises rich rewards In heaven to those who, for his sake, are scorned and persecuted. In Mt 25:34 ff, the Judge of the World decrees eternal reward for the just on the ground of their good works.

Surely, with all these passages, salvation must also be a reward, in which case, the only way that we can reconcile Romans 6:23 and Romans 2:7 (and Heb 6:10, Mt 5:12, and Mt25:34 ff) is to say that salvation is a gift AND a reward.

And indeed, that’s what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that for the justified, eternal life is BOTH a gift or grace promised by God AND a reward for his own good works and merits . As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, AT THE SAME TIME gifts of God AND meritorious acts of man. I’m referring here to TRUE merit, i.e., of meritum de condigno.

Hebrews 12:1: “Cloud of witnesses”

The more I think of Heb 12:1, the more the “faith alone” view of Protestants look so unbiblical to me.

Try reading the whole of Hebrews 11 and see if you’ll get a different impression, but for me the chapter speaks of everything except “faith alone.” All the saints- great and humble- mentioned there, all did something more than just have faith (the kind which finds expression in today’s Protestant exhortation: “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior, and you’re saved once for all).

David lost his justification when he sinned with Bathsheba, which means that had David died before Nathan rebuked him, David would have died in the state of sin, and all his prior justifications, and even his faith, would be of no help to him.

And yet it was only his justification which was lost – his faith remained, which belies the Protestant view that all that’s needed is for one to make that act of faith- accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, and that’s it, he’s saved. It was only after admitting to his sin and begging God for forgiveness (which had to wait for Nathan’s reminder) that David once again recovered his justification. (Protestants would explain this by claiming that all David lost was the “joy of his salvation,” not his salvation itself, as if there can be any joy other than that brought about by salvation.)

Or look at Noah. “Warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, (Noah) took heed and constructed an ark . . .by this he became an heir to the righteousness which comes by faith.” It took Noah 120 years to build the Ark, a long time within which to doubt, after all, a flood would seem to be the last thing that would happen amidst all the carousing around him. To me that sounds so unlike the instant salvation of Protestants.

Or take Abel. To me it seems unlikely that all Abel did was to make an act of faith similar to what today’s Protestants urge, and voila, he’s saved. It strikes me as more likely that God was pleased of Abel because of Abel’s generosity: everytime Abel chose the animals for his sacrifice, he invariably chose the best. Always, nothing but the best for God. I can imagine him going through his flock (he was a shepherd), and seeking out the best. While doing so, I can imagine the devil whispering to him “Nahh, not that one,” but Abel would always end up choosing the best for his sacrifice.

We can go over each one of Chapter 11’s list- Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Moses’ parents, Rahab the harlot, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, Samuel, and perhaps Benaiah, Dan, Elijah, Hezekiah,Judith, the widow of Zerephath, Elisha, Zechariah, Naboth, Jeremiah, Isaiah (who, it is said, was sawn in two), the Three Young Men (Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah), and others. In the event that I find myself in heaven some day I hope, I would probably ask Hananiah what made him get to heaven, I doubt if he would ever say “One day in 606 B.C. I repented of my sins, and accepted God as Savior, and that’s it, I was saved.”

Sacred Tradition: The unwritten part of Christ's teachings

It's unwritten all right, but this does not, in any way, dismiss its value as a rich source of teaching.

The Holy Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, even such a mundane concern as the authorship of Matthew -- how could we know about these things were it not for Sacred Tradition? Christ ordered his Apostles to preach - not write -- the Gospel.

It's sad that Protestants miss this little detail, but Sacred Tradition is definitely Biblical.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.”

Rom 10:8 “But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming.”

Rom 10:17 “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”

2 Tim 1:13 “What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.”

2 Tim 4:2 “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.”

1 Cor 15:11 “Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.”

Gal 1:11-12 “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

Eph 1:13 “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.”

Col 1:5 “the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel”

Titus 1:3 “and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior”

Sacred Tradition

Protestant: The Bible is very clear, it is also complete, nothing else is needed.

Catholic: Maybe, except that the Bible itself clearly states otherwise.

For instance, where in the Bible does it show the list of books that are inspired, and which, therefore, should comprise it? If nowhere, then how was its canonicity established? By Catholics? But how would Catholics have been able to? There's only one answer: Sacred Tradition, which is Christ's teaching preached- exactly how Christ commanded it to be.

What is your doctrine on God the Son in relation to God the Father? Is the Son consubstantial with the Father? Who came first: the Father or the Son? Or did neither of them come after the other, both having no beginning? Can you cite passages which support your doctrine?

What is your doctrine with regard to the Son? Does he have two natures- one human, the other divine—or only one? Does he have two persons- one human, the other divine- or only one? Where in the Bible can your answer be found?

Is the Catholic teaching about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son correct or not? Can you show me where in the Bible can your answer be found?

Who wrote Matthew? What Bible passage made you say that?

You will find that you cannot answer the above questions merely by referring to the Bible. Which is why Protestants should follow what the Bible says, and not disown Sacred Tradition. There are things in the Bible that only Sacred Tradition can illuminate.

Protestant-Catholic exchange

Protestant: The contention of the evangelicals/protestants in not accepting human tradition of the catholic church is that the Bible alone can provide answers to MAN'S NEEDS IN ORDER FOR HIM TO KNOW GOD, TO BELIEVE AND EXPERIENCE HIS PROMISES, TO BE SAVED, TO WORSHIP HIM, TO LOVE HIM, TO SERVE HIM AND TO LIVE A LIFE EXPECTED OF A BELIEVER. As far as these needs are concerned, evangelicals/protestants believe the Bible alone is enough to provide the answers.

Catholic: No doubt, the Bible is useful "for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness," but it does not mean that the Bible alone is. Sacred Tradition also is.

Note that we’re not speaking about human tradition, but Sacred Tradition. Compare:

Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”

2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

The same Paul couldn’t condemn “tradition” in one breath and in the next breath tell brethren to hold fast to it. It simply doesn’t make sense. The only explanation, of course, and one which Protestants overlook is that there are TWO traditions spoken of here: one good, the other less than good. The good one is what Catholics call Sacred Tradition.

Unless Protestants begin to acknowledge the mention in the Bible of two kinds of "tradition," they will never be able to see Revelation as it is.

In the second place, nowhere does the Bible say that it is the ONLY source of answers to all questions. All it says is for itself to be useful in teaching, refutation, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16-17). It doesn’t say it is the ONLY one.

In fact, Bible admits that

• it doesn’t contain all that Jesus taught or said (John 20:30; John 21:25);
• that it is NOT self-explanatory, and has to have its passages explained by one with a direct link to the Apostles (Acts 8:30-31);
• that it is NOT the final authority [the Church is] Mt 18:15-18);
• that in it are things hard to understand which the unlearned and unstable mis-interpret to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Why, the Bible even frowns at personal interpretation (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Through the centuries, Protestants have clung to their interpretation of Bible passages they hold as Gospel truth, disregarding passages which contradict preconceived notions. The Protestant statement (in blue) below is a classic example.

There can be questions and concerns which might not be easily found in the Bible. And no way human tradition [even if you label it as SACRED] can provide it even if granting it cannot be found in the written scriptures. NO WAY!!!


Example:

1. If the Bible clearly tells me that I am a saint because I am a believer, how can tradition contradict by saying that I need to be canonized or beatified by the pope who even such a word do not appear in the bible?

In the first place, and as I have told you previously, the Church agrees with you-- the justified, even if while still alive, are also called "saints." But- and here you laughed at me -- they are saints as part of the Church Militant- people on earth alive and struggling to persevere till the end. Saint Paul is a "saint" all right, but he is a part of the Church Triumphant-- those already in heaven.

Here's a classic example. The Bible is talking only of one body of Christ - the Church - the Saints. Tradition is making it 3. Church suffering, militant and triumphant? What kind of teaching is that? And if you agree that the justified are called saints, where do you put as necessary the beatification and canonization of the pope?

You won’t see “church militant,” “ church triumphant,” “ nor church suffering” in the Bible, but that fact doesn‘t mean they don’t exist, in the same way that, try as you might, you will never see the word “trinity” in the Bible ( but again that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist).

In Rev 5:8 and 8:3, the saints in heaven lay the prayers of the holy ones on earth at the feet of God, that is, they support the prayers of the holy ones on earth with their (the saints') intercession. All the Church did was to give a name – “church triumphant” – to those who made it to heaven, as distinct from the living on earth, which the Church also gave a name- “church militant.”

In 2 Tim 1:18, Paul desires God’s mercy on the day of judgment for his loyal helper Onesiphorus , who apparently was already dead at the time of the writing of 2 Timothy.

In the same way, the Church simply gave a name to those in purgatory—“church suffering.”
I cannot understand why Protestants would readily accept “sola fide” even if the word is nowhere found in the Bible, and yet bristle with contempt over “church militant,” “church triumphant,” and “church suffering,” or about not finding the word “pope” in the Bible.

Now if you ask, on whose say so is St. Paul claimed to be already in heaven? The answer is, on the say so of the Church, through the Pope, by the Power of the Keys. I know you will pooh-pooh that, but that's how it is.

What do you mean by that's how it is? Meaning because the pope says so then it is? Just when did the Pope become God?

The infinite gap between Creator and creature can never be bridged, and the Pope, no matter how powerful he is, can never be God. But we are not talking about the divinization of the Pope here, we're talking about God giving the Pope fantastic powers through the Power of the Keys, which, if you will only read Isaiah 22 with all humility, begging God for the grace to understand, assuming that you, too, seek the truth, you will find that God gave the Pope authority without relinquishing his (God's) own.

If the Bible clearly tells me that I have access to the Father through faith in Jesus, how come tradition tells me to ask the intervention of saints

Because the Bible clearly tells you so. Rev 5:8- we've been through this before. Catholics seek the intercession of saints because no less than the Bible says the saints in heaven pray for the people on earth. In the passage all it mentions are "prayers of the saints" being presented before God. But let me ask, for whom are the prayers, because by its very nature, prayers HAVE to be for someone, otherwise it's not a prayer: for the saints? No, because they're already saints, and what more do saints need- they have God, they have everything! For the angels? No, because they likewise have everything, they have God, they don't need anything else. For God? All the more, no. Then for whom?

and Mary so my prayers will be answered. How come people believe tradition's teaching that Mary is a mediatrix between me and Jesus when Jesus himself is my mediator.

The Church has always taught of one mediator: Jesus Christ.

Granting. What if I will not ask the intercession of the so called saints? Will my prayers answered or not?

How to deal with prayers is something that's exclusively God’s. Catholics ask for the intercession of saints, but Catholics accept that the decision is all God's.

Why is it that tradition is teaching the people to make a sign of the cross when praying when Jesus in teaching his apostles how to pray never mentioned about making a cross?

In the first place, Bible admits that it doesn’t contain all that Jesus taught or said (John 20:30; John 21:25).

In the second place, if Paul glories in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 6:14), why can’t the rest of the faithful? Our Lord tells His apostles, "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." (Matthew 28:19). What’s wrong with the faithful reminding themselves of that fact many times during the day by crossing themselves?

Why should I go through purgatory as tradition insisted when the Bible is very clear that I am a citizen of heaven?

In the first place, no one can be certain of heaven while on earth- the Bible is unequivocally clear about that (Phil 2:12). In the second place, because purgatory is something right off the Bible:

The Church teaches of an intermediate state between earth and heaven, where the soul of a person goes who dies in the state of grace, but who has not made good the temporal punishment due his sins. This is based on the premise that nothing unclean may enter heaven. So the first question now becomes: Is this statement, i.e., nothing unclean may enter heaven , Scriptural?

Rev 21:27 tells us it is. But then Protestants will say: “Precisely, that is why Christ died on the Cross for our sins, so that God, by the merit of Christ’s sacrifice, will declare the justified clean, and thus would be able to enter heaven.

But the Church teaches that justification is not just a forensic declaration, but an actual and complete removal of sins. The Bible is replete with passages explicitly telling of a "washing away," a "blottting out," a "taking away" of sins S(Ps 50:3 Is 43:25 Is 44:22 Acts 3:19 Chr 21:8 2 Sam 12:13 Mich 7:18 John 1:29 Ps 102:12 Ps 50:4 Is 1:16 Ez 36:25 Acts 22:16 1 Cor 6:11 Heb 1:3 1 John 1:7 Ps 3:1 Ps 84:3 Mt 9:2-6 Luke 7:47 John 20:23 Mt 26:28 Eph 1:7), that we would have to tear off many pages of the Bible if we insist on forensic declaration.

Here, I will give Scriptural proof in support of the Church’s teaching of a purification in that state called “purgatory.”

2 Mac 12:42-46 describes the Jews praying for their dead. Now, that’d be pointless if there were no intermediate state, as saints in heaven do not need prayers, and neither do the damned in hell.

Neither would Mt 12:32 make sense if there were no intermediate state (” And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come.”), for there ‘s no forgiveness for the damned in hell, and neither is forgiveness needed for the saints in heaven.

In 1 Cor 3:12 Paul says that the work of the Christian teacher of faith who continues to build on the foundation , which is Christ, but in doing so uses wood, hay, and straw (i.e., perform bad work) will not stand when it is tested in the fire on the last day, that is, in the manner of a man who , in the catastrop0he of a conflagration, loses everything and barely saves his life (cf v15 “If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; yet he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”). This passage refers to a transient purification punishment, literally, by fire.

Mt 5:26 threatens: “Amen, I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.” Every petty transgression must first be expiated. So here we see, that nothing in this world is ever free. The stealing, the killing, the philandering, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, in-vitro fertilization, stem-cell - if only the perpetrators know that everything will be paid for, they wouldn’t be so bold.

Priest

Protestant: There is no such thing as "priests." The Catholics' "priest" is not Biblical.

One will not see “priest” in Scripture except as referring to Old Testament priests.

Again, this does not mean “priests” do not exist. Take a look at 2 Tim 2:1-2. Protestants might not believe it, but the “grace” referred to by Paul here is the sacramental grace of Order, in other words, grace associated with priestly ordination. Taking this passage alone will not show how this claim is true. Those seeking the truth have to go back a lot to the history of Paul, right down to the time Timothy, the son of a pagan father and a Jewess mother, then a mere strapping youth, so impressed Paul that Paul marked him off as someday becoming a good priest. Here Paul makes use of military, athletic, and farming examples to impress upon Timothy the need for effort in Timothy’s work as a minister if it is to produce results, in the manner that Paul applies to himself. In 2 Cor 12:15, for instance, Paul says: “I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls.” This exhortation is classic, and encapsulates the spirit of solicitude which should be the hallmark of every priest.

The institution of the priesthood by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper is the usual given in answer to Protestant questions about priests, but many must have heard about it countless times before I’m sure, so I thought of doing it through the example of Timothy. There’s only one problem: one won’t appreciate it unless he has become more or less intimate with the life of Paul, in which case he’d have gotten to know better the other people Paul’s worked with.

Purgatory

One won’t see “church militant,” “ church triumphant,” “ nor church suffering” in the Bible, but that fact doesn‘t mean they don’t exist, in the same way that, try as one might, he will never see the word “trinity” in the Bible ( but again that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist).

In Rev 5:8 and 8:3, the saints in heaven lay the prayers of the holy ones on earth at the feet of God, that is, they support them with their intercession. All the Church did was to give a name – “church triumphant” – to those who made it to heaven, as distinct from the living on earth, which the Church also gave a name- “church militant.”

In 2 Tim 1:18, Paul desires God’s mercy on the day of judgment for his loyal helper Onesiphorus , who apparently was already dead at the time of the writing of 2 Timothy.

In the same way, the Church simply gave a name to those in purgatory—“church suffering.” I cannot understand why Protestants – who would readily accept “sola fide” even if the same is nowhere found in the Bible, and yet bristle with contempt over “church militant,” “church triumphant,” and “church suffering.”

I cannot likewise understand why Protestants – who pride themselves with their total familiarity with the Bible, dismiss offhand many Catholic teachings as unbiblical, only to be shown, probably much to their chagrin, about how Biblical these teachings are.

Holy Eucharist (Ref: Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Protestant: There is no such thing as the Real Presence, John 6 is all metaphorical. What's referred to here is spiritual food and drink. Look at 1 Cor 3-4: “And all of them ate from the same spiritual manna and all drank from the same spiritual drink.” This clearly speaks against a literal translation of John 6.

Catholic: A literal translation is necessary , and is evident:

1. From the Greek original. The v.55 Greek refers to “true, real food,” and “true, real drink.”The Greek v.54 means “to gnaw, to chew, to munch.”

2. From the difficulties created by a figurative interpretation. In Biblical language, to eat a person’s flesh and drink his blood in the metaphorical sense is to persecute him in a bloody fashion, to destroy him. See, for instance, Ps 26:2 “When the wicked rush at me to devour my flesh. . .” Is 9:20 “Manasseh devours Ephraim, Ephraim devours Manasseh, and against Judah together they march.” Is 49:26I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and be drunk with their own blood as with wine.” Mic 3:3 “Those who eat my people’s flesh . . .”

3. From the reaction of the listeners, they petered away, finding the teaching difficult to accept, and Jesus did not do anything to call them back, which would have been the natural thing for him to do if all that was involved was a misunderstanding. But there was no misunderstanding – the people heard correctly: Christ was telling them to literally eat his flesh, and literally drink his blood. Note, further, how Jesus persisted in doing all these knowing fully well that his own apostles and disciples are already grumbling at the teaching , and would probably desert him (v.60).

4. By the wording. Nothing in the text suggest a figurative interpretation: v.50, v.51, v.53, v.54, v.55, v.56, v.57, v.58, v.64. In verse 55, as if to make sure that he is not misconstrued, Jesus even says: “For my flesh is food INDEED, and my blood is drink INDEED.” In these passages, Christ couldn’t be more emphatic nor clear, especially if we note that there is nothing in the nature of bread and wine, nor by current speech usage of the listeners at that time, to connect bread and wine as symbols of a man’s body and blood. Neither is there inherent contradiction in the literal interpretation, unless, of course, one doubts the divinity of Christ, in which case many things will be impossible for him.

5. By Paul's warning for the faithful to refrain from unworthily taking Holy Communion. If the Holy Eucharist is metaphorical, how on earth can a metaphor bring down heaven's wrath? The only explanation is that St. Paul lies (but how can that be?) when he warns the consequences to one who UNWORTHILY takes the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor 11:27 “Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the bloody and the blood of the Lord.” Or 1 Cor 10:16: “The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of ‘Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”

6. By the inadequacy of the arguments advanced against it. When “is” in many passages of Scripture means “designates” or “symbolizes,” the figurative sense is immediately apparent from the nature of the matter. For instance, when Jesus says in Mt 13:38 “The field IS the world,” right away we know that he speaks here in the figurative sense. Similarly, when Jesus says “I AM the gate of the sheep” (John 10:7) right away we know that he speaks here figuratively. Or in John 15:1 “I AM the true vine . . .”

Not so with John 6.

2 Thess 2:15: What the other bibles say

New American Standard Bible
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

King James Bible
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

American King James Version
Therefore, brothers, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our letter.

American Standard Version
So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Darby Bible Translation
So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold fast the instructions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.

English Revised Version
So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

Webster's Bible Translation
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

World English Bible
So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter.

Young's Literal Translation
so, then, brethren, stand ye fast, and hold the deliverances that ye were taught, whether through word, whether through our letter;

Sacred Tradition (Ref Navarre Bible)

(Ref: Navarre Bible Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles)


Protestant: Everything outside the Bible is a lie. Trash.

Catholic: Is it? To find out, let’s go to Timothy. Paul addressed the letter to Timothy in Timothy’s capacity as the minister of the Christian church in Ephesus. Ephesus was a fairly well- established church , but one that was beset with difficulties typical of a young church, chiefly, the teachings being spread by certain teachers. These false teachers seem to have been Jewish Christians retaining their Jewish biases.

Like Titus in Crete, Paul thinks that Timothy has to be forewarned, to ensure that the correct teaching be strictly preserved and adhered to. These “myths,” of which Paul speaks against, are probably legends about patriarchs and other Biblical heroes, and “genealogies” genealogies popular in certain rabbinical schools.

In 1 Tim 6:20 Paul implores Timothy: “O Timothy guard what has been entrusted to you .” The Greek word Paul uses and which translates to “what has been entrusted to you” is “paratheke,” meaning “deposit.”

In Roman law, a “deposit” was something entrusted to someone who was then obligated to protect it so that the same might be returned to its owner on demand; usually, it concerns a deposit of money or some other form of property.
So we now ask: what was this “deposit” that Paul was so concerned about? Was it money? Property?

2 Tim 1:8-14 tells us what this “deposit” is: it is the body of doctrine concerning the teaching s of Christ handed down from Christ to the Apostles, and tightly guarded by them to preserve its integrity. It’s the Gospel, the Good News of which you’re so jubilant about ( v. 8, v.11), the truth that no less than the Holy Spirit has entrusted (v.14).

Paul might be thought of as saying it this way: “He himself who has entrusted the deposit to me knows how to keep it intact. I suffer as may be to ensure that this treasure is not snatched away from me. I do not try to escape whatever evils I have to undergo; I am happy as long as the deposit is intact.”

[ It seems Paul is concerned that his being in prison might result in a slackening of Christian fervor for the truth.]

Thes 3:6 confirms this, but refers to it as “tradition”: Christian teaching Paul himself received and which he preached to others. Paul speaks of it again in 1 Cor 11:23: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. . .”. And yet again in 1 Cor 15:1-3: “ Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, on which you stand, by which you are saved , if you hold it fast, UNLESS YOU BELIEVED IN VAIN [emphasis mine]. For I delivered to you as of first importance, what I also received . . .”

Protestants would probably chorus: “But of course, all these verses speak of what I have been talking about all along—Bible alone.”

Well, maybe, except that 2 Thes 2:15 is very clear: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [emphasis mine] or by letter.” The Bible would easily pass the “letter” half, but it will not pass the “word of mouth” half. Only Sacred Tradition will.

Let me leave Protestants this question: What, according to Paul, is the pillar and bulwark of the truth? Is it the Bible? Sorry, but it’s the Church (1 Tim 3:15), the same Church which is telling you now about the Sacred Tradition which you scoff at.

Conversation with Protestant friend

Protestant post in blue. Catholic replies in italics.

In the same manner that I do believed before what you believe now. Thanks God, a messenger of God counselled me to empty myself of what tradition has rooted in my mind. I can still remember him using a glass of water as his illustration. God can no longer pour in fresh water unless I empty myself. He told me God can no longer speak to me clearly because I already have these traditions and fallacies rooted in my heart and mind. In fact, it was painful but liberating to leave and finally forsake those traditions and false, deceptive doctrines. Paul was right when he wrote about it in Colossians 2:8. And only then when I followed his counsel that I clearly understand what the Bible says that -

• The Bible is the only source of God's revelation. There is no such thing as traditions.

"Brethren, stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours (2 Thes 2:15)."

Likewise 2 Tim 1:13; 1 Cor 11:23; 2 Tim 2:1; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thes 2:15; 2 Thes 3:6.

Outside of the scriptures, everything is lie.

"First of all you must understand this, that no prohecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no propehcy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20)."

Likewise see Acts 8:30-31; 2 Peter 3:16. It's not even the Bible that should be the final arbiter in all questions. First, because nowhere is it found in the Bible that says the Bible is. Second, because the Bible SAYS, it's the Church, or Matthew lies in Mt 18:15-18.

Peter is the great apostle to the Jews. Paul was for the gentiles. As such, Peter was never been in Rome.

Protestants have certain strange peculiarities. They see "alone" where none exists, as in Rom 3:28. They don't see "alone" when "alone" is clearly there (James 2:24). They have this tendency to see things as mutually exclusive. For them, since it's God who does the good act, it cannot be man. They just couldn't see that it can be God AND man, which is what it is.

Here, they demostrate once more this peculiarity: Since Peter is the apostle to the Jews, he couldn't , just possibly couldn't have been in Rome.

There is no such thing as Petrine supremacy and papal succession. It's a big black lie.

Then Bible lies. What a blasphemy. Isaiah 22 is very clear. And, while the power of binding and loosing was given to others, the power of the keys wa given to Peter alone. It's all Scriptural, all you have to do is accept that you might have been wrong. Even at hiring time, the apostles were already given fantastic powers to have authority over unclean spirits, drive them out, heal the sick, cleanse lepers, raise the dead, BUT it was ONLY to Peter that was given the power of the keys.

And what about Acts: "Let his office another take."?

Everything rome displayed as relics of Peter, from bones to chains to robe are all findings of rome, confirm by rome and validated by rome and rome wants the world to believe.

For a while, the secret was shared by the Pope then with Constantine, who was emperor, but who was not Christian. How can you say it was Rome?

Rome is never, and can never be the center of Christianity. Rome made "christianity" [roman version]

It's plain you did not even bother to check out what obviously was information merely passed on to you. Constantine the Great NEVER made Christianity the "official religion" of the Roman empire. All he did was to ALLOW it alongside all others.

the official religion of the roman empire to unify both early christians and pagans to protect the interest of roman empire. That's why there is a mixture of "christian" and pagan way of worship done in roman catholic church even today.

The bible never mention about pope.

We've been through this (please refer to earlier posts).

So, there can never be such an office or a leader.

I think it's in acts, that part where - Peter says "Let his office somebody else take," upon which they chose between - was that Joseph?- and Matthias.

This is invented by rome to take hold of mankind. They want mankind to worship rome in the pretense of worshipping God. And they want the world to believe that pope is God's vicar here on earth. And so anyone who want to see God must look at the pope.

I must be dreaming, hearing this from you.

New Testament believers don't need priests.

Unless you have another source, I will have the Bible. John 6 clearly describes the institution of the priesthood by Jesus Christ himself at the Last Supper. The word "priest" itself is not mentioned, but who do you think would execute Christ's command "Do this in remembrance of me" except priests?

Pope and priests are never mentioned in Ephesians 4:11.


You will not see “priest” in Scripture except as referring to Old Testament priests.

Again, this does not mean “priests” do not exist. Take a look at 2 Tim 2:1-2. You might not believe it, but the “grace” referred to by Paul here is the sacramental grace of Order, in other words, grace associated with priestly ordination. Taking this passage alone will not show how this claim is true. You have to go back a lot to the history of Paul, right down to the time Timothy, the son of a pagan father and a Jewess mother, then a mere strapping youth, so impressed Paul that Paul marked him off as someday becoming a good priest.

Here Paul makes use of military, athletic, and farming examples to impress upon Timothy the need for effort in Timothy’s work as a minister if it is to produce results, in the manner that Paul applies to himself.

In 2 Cor 12:15, for instance, Paul says: “I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls.” This exhortation is classic, and encapsulates the spirit of solicitude which should be the hallmark of every priest.

The institution of the priesthood by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper is the usual given in answer to Protestant questions about priests, but you’ve heard about it countless times before I’m sure, so I thought of doing it through the example of Timothy. There’s only one problem: you won’t appreciate it unless you’ve become more or less intimate with the life of Paul, in which case you’d have gotten to know better the other people Paul’s worked with.

We only have one great high priest who ministered in the true tabernacle in heaven and that is none other than Jesus Christ [Hebrews 7-10]

True, but what should keep Jesus Christ from assigning special human beings he himself has chosen from all eternity to celebrate Holy Mass in his stead?

Transsubstantiation is rome's invention to take control of worshippers. They want people to believe that they can only "receive" and "take hold" of Christ through communion done only in the hands of priests. I cannot imagine by the request of priest, the Holy Spirit can make the bread and wine as body and blood of Christ. Only fools believe on this.

Protestants scoff at the Church’s teaching of the Real Presence, claiming that it’s metaphorical. They cling to 1 Cor 3-4: “And all of them ate from the same spiritual manna and all drank from the same spiritual drink” claiming this clearly speaks against a literal translation of John 6. Let’s see.

A literal translation is necessary , and is evident:

1. From the Greek original. The v.55 Greek refers to “true, real food,” and “true, real drink.”The Greek v.54 refers “to gnaw, to chew, to munch.”

2. From the difficulties created by a figurative interpretation. In Biblical language, to eat a person’s flesh and drink his blood in the metaphorical sense is to persecute him in a bloody fashion, to destroy him. See, for instance, Ps 26:2 “When the wicked rush at me to devour my flesh. . .” Is 9:20 “Manasseh devours Ephraim, Ephraim devours Manasseh, and against Judah together they march.” Is 49:26I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and be drunk with their own blood as with wine.” Mic 3:3 “Those who eat my people’s flesh . . .”

3. From the reaction of the listeners, they petered away, finding the teaching difficult to accept, and Jesus did not do anything to call them back, which would have been the natural thing for him to do if all that was involved was a misunderstanding. But there was no misunderstanding – the people heard correctly: Christ was telling them to literally eat his flesh, and literally drink his blood. Note, further, how Jesus persisted in doing all these knowing fully well that his own apostles and disciples are already grumbling at the teaching , and would probably desert him (v.60).

4. By the wording. Nothing in the text suggest a figurative interpretation: v.50, v.51, v.53, v.54, v.55, v.56, v.57, v.58, v.64. In verse 55, as if to make sure that he is not misconstrued, Jesus even says: “For my flesh is food INDEED, and my blood is drink INDEED.” In these passages, Christ couldn’t be more emphatic nor clear, especially if we note that there is nothing in the nature of bread and wine, nor by current speech usage of the listeners at that time, to connect bread and wine as symbols of a man’s body and blood. Neither is there inherent contradiction in the literal interpretation, unless, of course, one doubts the divinity of Christ, in which case many things will be impossible for him.

5. By what I have already told you: how can a metaphor threaten one’s salvation? The only explanation is that St. Paul lies when he warns the consequences to one who UNWORTHILY takes the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor 11:27 “Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the bloody and the blood of the Lord.” Or 1 Cor 10:16: “The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of ‘Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”

6. By the inadequacy of the arguments advanced against it. When “is” in many passages of Scripture means “designates” or “symbolizes,” the figurative sense is immediately apparent from the nature of the matter. For instance, when Jesus says in Mt 13:38 “The field IS the world,” right away we know that he speaks here in the figurative sense. Similarly, when Jesus says “I AM the gate of the sheep” (John 10:7) right away we know that he speaks here figuratively. Or in John 15:1 “I AM the true vine . . .”

Not so with John 6.

Infant Baptism is rome way of controlling the mind and loyalty of every human being. They secretly call this doctrine - FROM CRADDLE TO GRAVE principle. They want to impose control in every human being from his birth until his death.

You know Lydia the seller of purple? She had her entire household baptized by Paul. Purple used to be made from tons of shellfish, as dyes then use only natural colors. After reading Paul (still reading Paul), I have become a Lydia fan.

Praying the Rosary is a paganist prayer.

Mary is never and can never be the mother of God.

Then you doubt that Jesus Christ is God, for indeed, Jesus Christ has Mary for his biological mother.

Satan is diverting man's knowledge of the true mediator Jesus Christ by drawing their attention to another mediatrix as they call her. Mary was a virgin before Christ's birth and bore other children after Christ's birth. She was a great example of purity, faith and devotion to God.

Note that nowhere in Catholic teaching can you see that.

Exalting Mary beyond how the Bible describes her is not sanctioned by God's Word. Rome is inventing everything to draw man's attention away from Jesus Christ.

Nowhere in Catholic teaching can you see that.

That's why a lot of catholic today are "EXPERTS" in praying the rosary and yet ignorant about the Bible.

I pray. If I'm also ignorant of the Bible, thank you for calling my attention.

One become SAINT the moment he believes in Jesus. No such thing as beatification or canonization by pope. It's a total lie.

See Isaiah 22 please.

Now tell me Sir, can your human intellect make you understand all these things. Unless you become humble enough to admit that you cannot understand spiritual things and you need God's revelation, you will never agree with me or anybody speaking the TRUE WORD OF GOD. Let Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 open your heart and mind.

As soon as I'm done answering your questions, I will have to ask the same question of you.

And as I close, my prayer is for you to search the truth NOT FROM A ROMAN PAPIST point of view but from a point of view of someone who is empty and longing, hungry and thirsting of God's revelation of truth.

Thanks again.

Can we persist in sin and still get to heaven?

Protestant: The epistles are addressed to people WHO HAVE ACCEPTED THIS GIFT. That explains why in most of his epistles, Paul addressed the recipients as SAINTS, CHURCH, BELIEVERS, SANCTIFIED, JUSTIFIED, CHILDREN OF GOD. Are these people perfect? NO. Look at Ephesians, Galatians, etc. These books tell us the admonitions of Paul to his readers to live a life of Holiness and Obedience. This is so simply because even if these people ACCEPTED THE GIFT by putting their Faith in Jesus, nowhere in the scriptures that they are described as PERFECT, SINLESS PEOPLE.

Catholic: Maybe, except that Is 43:25 Acts 3:19, and Is 44:22 seem to me as clearly describing a blotting out, a wiping away, a taking away of sins, not a mere declaration that sin’s no longer there when in fact it is. Please help me see your view.

Yet again Is 1:16 and Luke in “Acts 22:16 speak of a washing away of sins, not merely a covering up. Heb 1:3 speaks of a cleansing of sins. 1 John 1:7 is even more emphatic: “Cleanse us from ALL sins.” Paul says “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified. . .” in 1 Cor 6:11.

There’s just too many of them that I'd be surprised if there's even one passage in the Bible which says heaven admits sin and all. IN fact, NOWHERE in Sacred Scripture that it even HINTS that we DON’T have to be sinless to get to heaven.

Oh I see, I think I got it. Since you’re saying that being perfect is NOT NEEDED for one to be a saint, to be a member of the Church, to be justified, to be called a believer, to be sanctified; and since I’m saying that one has to be perfect to get to heaven, we must be talking of two different things: you’re talking of the journey, I’m talking of the final destination.

Protestant: NOW TELL ME ABOUT ACTS 13:38. What do you mean of the statement "THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS IS PROCLAIMED TO YOU. Then continue reading and understand of verse 39.

Catholic: First, you're hanging your argument on the word "PROCLAIMED," with all its implications of absoluteness, finality, and infallibility. Yet look at other Bibles- some use "proclaimed," others use "preached," while one uses "announced."

In one version, the word is not even found (International Standard version: " And that everyone who believes in him is justified and freed from everything that kept you from being justified by the law of Moses.")!

Second, you can't be telling me that of all the passages in the Bible that pertain, you will believe as the truth only one- this particular one, which also happens to agree with you.

Finally I thought we've condemned proof-texting.

.

Matthew 5:12

Protestant: Salvation is a gift, and therefore free, unmerited. It can never be a reward, for that would make Christ's suffering on the Cross a joke.

Catholic: Sacred Scripture says that eternal blessedness in heaven is the reward for good works performed on this earth, and rewards and merits are correlative concepts.

In Mt 5:12 Jesus promises rich rewards In heaven to those who, for his sake, are scorned and persecuted. In Mt 25:34 ff, the Judge of the World decrees eternal reward for the just on the ground of their good works.

In Matthew 5:12, Jesus was talking to REDEEMED/JUSTIFIED men. Notice in 5:1, From among the crowds, His DISCIPLES came to Him. Disciples are those who are learners or students of Jesus. They become one because they believe in Him.

In Matthew 25:34, consider when this scenario takes place. Will this takes place after the great tribulaton or before. Will this takes place after the rapture or before. Relate this to 1st Thessalonians 4:13-18. This is to make clear why these men are rewarded by their good works.

Catholic: What you claim is hard teaching. Surely, Jesus did not come to the world to save ONLY Jews, and among the Jews, only BELIEVERS. Surely, Jesus came for all mankind, including future human beings, not only that motley group who were so fortunate to have been there.

In the Beatitudes, Jesus was teaching mankind how to get to heaven, which is open to all whose religious dispositions and moral conduct meet the demands which Jesus lays down. The meek, the peacemakers, the pure in heart, etc – these are not different kinds of people, but different demands made on everyone who wants to be a disciple of Christ. (Navarre Bible)

Similarly, salvation is not being promised to different groups in society- e.g., believers only, but to EVERYONE who strives to follow the spirit and to meet the demands contained in the Beatitudes.

Salvation: gift or reward?

Sir, before we can go further ahead of other arguments and views, we have to settle first on the question: IS SALVATION A GIFT OR A REWARD. In my view, it cannot be both. Because the way I see it in the scriptures, there is a "synonymity" of GIFT and GRACE. And Grace is simply defined as UNMERITED FAVOR. Meaning, we are given this GIFT that we do not actually have in iota of right deserving it. This is purely GIFT because NOBODY can have it no matter how he performs. And it must be given BY SOMEBODY WHO HAS IT. And sad to say, no amount of human effort or accomplishment can ever "BUY" it.

The epistles are addressed to people WHO HAVE ACCEPTED THIS GIFT. That explains why in most of his epistles, Paul addressed the recipients as SAINTS, CHURCH, BELIEVERS, SANCTIFIED, JUSTIFIED, CHILDREN OF GOD. Are these people perfect? NO. Look at Ephesians, Galatians, etc. These books tell us the admonitions of Paul to his readers to live a life of Holiness and Obedience. This is so simply because even if these people ACCEPTED THE GIFT by putting their Faith in Jesus, nowhere in the scriptures that they are described as PERFECT, SINLESS PEOPLE.

Pardon me, but let me give a simplistic Illustration again:

This Christmas, you as a loving Father will certainly
give your children gifts. You will agree with me that you will give this gift to them not because they are perfect children, but simply because you love them. Will you take this gift back one day if they will not perform well as you expected? Certainly Not, because this is a GIFT not a REWARD.

Catholic: Okay. Let me see if I got you right.

1 Cor 9:27 Okay. I think your reply can be summarized by the following: “Again, if you take this “crowns” and “rewards” as salvation, then it renders salvation or eternal life as a REWARD no longer as a GIFT.”

I will have my answer tomorrow- I left my Navarre Romans and Galatians bible, I couldn’t check on the passages, but offhand I have a few questions:

1. Your statement is based on two crucial assumptions: First, a “gift” cannot be rejected. Second, salvation follows a strict either-or situation: either it’s a gift, in which case it cannot be a reward; or it’s a reward, in which case it cannot be a gift.

(insert) Sorry Sir, this is not an assumption. Romans 6:23 is very clear. Salvation/Eternal Life is a GIFT not a REWARD. For clarity, REWARD IS NOT A GIFT AND GIFT IS NOT A REWARD.

The question is: How valid are these two assumptions?

First, on whether a gift may not be rejected:

Luke 10:16 – “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 12:48 “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day”

Mt 10:33; Lk 12:9; Tit 1:16; Acts 7:39; Rom 2:8; Acts 13:46; 1 Tim 1:19; Lk 17:25; 1 Pet 2:4

All the verses above talk about 2 groups of people. Those who will REJECT Jesus Christ whom the Bible refers to generally as UNBELIEVERS. To them are the warnings of God that they will be REJECTED because they REJECTED Jesus Christ as God's Gift. To them is eternal condemnation. To them is denied eternal life. To them is HOPELESSNESS.

On the other hand, there is another group of people who BY FAITH BELIEVE AND RECEIVE JESUS CHRIST as God's GIFT. To them God gave the RIGHT TO BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD. [John 1:12]. They are the Believers, Saints, Church, God's People, Justified, Sanctified, Redeemed, Citizens of Heaven, God's elect, etc.


With regard to rewards, may I post my answer tomorrow? I left my notes at home so I cannot give you the passages. But the point is this: Salvation is a reward. I know this will make you laugh, cause you to see “works” which for you are all one and the same i.e., the works in the whole system of debt (the Romans 4:4 type).

However, there IS another type of works – I didn’t say that, Paul did-- and that is the type that justifies ( Rom 2:4-13 type – also see Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:12-17; 2
Cor 5:10). And this latter type is the type of works I’m speaking of.

Please do not confuse the 2 judgments [Judgment Seat of Christ, 2 Cor 5:10, and White Throne Judgment, Revelation 20:11]


(Catholic reply at the end of this long Protestant answer.)

White Throne Judgment is where God finally destined those who rejected Christ as their Messiah to their final destiny - eternal condemnation in Hell and those who believe, accepted Jesus Christ to their Final Destiny - Eternal Bliss in Heaven.


Judgment Seat of Christ talks about judgment of the BELIEVERS of the things they did while in the Body. God expects us to labor for Him, live a life of holiness and obedience. Of course, God is just He will reward us believers according to our PERFORMANCE as members of Christ Body - the Church. - IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION. Some Christians will get CROWNS, OTHERS MORE CROWNS. And certainly there will be others who will suffer SHAME because of their lousy kind of life shown in the Body. To prove this, examine the passage you use

1 Corinthians 3:12-17 [KJV] - 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

• v12 - If a believer does things in the name of Christ [v11] - as foundation, he can use expensive materials [gold, silver, precious stones], representing the kind of work he does. Or he can use inexpensive, destructible materials [wood, hay, stubble] representing the lousy works he does.


• v13 - However, the problem is, all works will be revealed. We cannot hide our motive of why we are doing it. God will test it by fire [this is symbolic of how gold is made pure - by fire]


• v14 - If our works survives the test because we are using expensive materials [representing our motives], we will be rewarded [with crowns, NOT SALVATION as it is already given]


• v15 - If our works do not survive or burned because we are using inexpensive destructible materials representing our ill-motive, we shall suffer loss [shame]

NOTICE: HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED ESCAPING THROUGH THE FIRES. SIMPLY BECAUSE WHAT IS BEING TESTED IS THE WORK DONE IN THE BODY NOT THE DOER HIMSELF BECAUSE HE IS A BELIEVER


• V16 - Don't you know that you yourselves is the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? - This statement can not be given to the UNBELIEVER.

• V17 - Warning: As Believers, treat the Church with reverence.


Catholic reply re JUDGMENT SEAT.” Let me answeer through a series of questions.

On 2 Cor 5:10 The judgment seat of Christ. Please answer true or false. If you answer “yes” to all, which you have to because they’re all statements of yours, look at the conclusion in numbers 6 and 7.

1. The judgment seat of Christ talks about the judgment of the BELIEVERS of the things they did while in the body. T/F

2. Only the BELIEVERS will be judged. The UNBELIEVERS are not among those to be judged. T/F

3. Being BELIEVERS, the judgment here has NOTHING to do with whether one will be saved or condemned. T/F

4. Being BELIEVERS, the judgment will be about the number of CROWNS each BELIEVER gets. Of course, how can it be otherwise, since even while living, BELIEVERS are already assured of heaven. T/F

5. Some BELIEVERS will have few CROWNS, others many. T/F

6. Therefore, Paul is WRONG in 2 Cor 5:10 when he says that the BELIEVERS will receive either good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. As we have said before, BELIEVERS can only receive good, never evil. T/F

7. Or, therefore, Paul is RIGHT, believers receive good or evil, according to what each has done in the body. But of course, since evil – like good- also exists in heaven. T/F

Merit

The same Catholic MERIT post, with Protestant replies in the form of bold inserts, and Catholic counter.

By his good works the justified man [I agree, we need to be justified FIRST by grace alone before our good works are acceptable to God] really acquires a claim [one need not claim, God certainly rewards us because He is just - Hebrews 6:10] to supernatural reward from God.

Well, yes and no.

1. By “justified” above I refer to a Catholic adult who has been baptized and has not fallen into mortal sin; also, to an adult who has been baptized, fell into mortal sin, but recovered his justification through (a) perfect contrition (with intention to have sacramental confession later), or (b) sacramental confession. So it’s different from your “justified” man.

2. It might not be correct to say that grace justifies. What’s more correct would probably be to say that grace is an INIDISPENSABLE requirement before any justification can happen.

So let me note that down.

1. You believe that works of the Rom 4:2-13 type justify
2. You believe that God rewards works of the Rom 4:2-13 type

Note that this is not the same as what you are right now thinking: reward for actions which precede grace, BUT rewards for actions PRECEDED BY GRACE. In other words, grace – specifically antecedent grace- which is UNMERITED, PRECEDES actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously. [ To simplify the formula: GRACE + FAITH = JUSTIFICATION = GOOD WORKS, where God gives GRACE, the sinner responds by FAITH and he is JUSTIFIED then he needs to produce good works as an expression of love and gratitude to what God did.]

Well again, yes and no.

1. Grace moves one to faith which is the start of justification which may or may not produce good works. Protestants believe that when the button of faith is pushed, the conveyor belt of good works starts moving. Not so with Catholics.

2. Justification is, for Catholics, a process, not a one-time event.

3. Not only faith, but also fear (Sirach 1:28), hope (Rom 8:24), charity (Luke 7:47), penance with contrition (Luke 13:3), and almsgiving (Daniel 4:24) are involved in the preparation for justification. In fact, faith is not the most important, it is love (1 Cor 13:2)

The Church teaches that for the justified, eternal life is BOTH a gift or grace promised by God AND a reward If that's the case again, then how do you reconcile this with Romans 6:23? While the RC church teaches that, which one should we follow?]

Well what about Rom 6:23? “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” If you mean to say eternal life being a gift cannot be a reward, then you don’t agree with Paul (Rom 2:6-7, Heb 6:10; 1 Cor 3:8; Heb 10:35; Heb 11:6; Col 3:24). Catholics follow both.

for his own good works and merits . As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, AT THE SAME TIME gifts of God AND meritorious acts of man. I’m referring here to TRUE merit, i.e., of meritum de condigno (a technical term).
To clarify my position, as far as JUSTIFICATION or SALVATION or ETERNAL life is concerned, our good works has nothing to do with it. Why because it is purely GRACE or GIFT which becomes ours the moment we put our trust on the merit of what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross.

Let me see if I got your right:

1. For you, good works, although they automatically result from justification, do not by themselves justify.

2. For you it’s ALL grace in the sense that man has nothing to do with it, man being just a passive entity here.

3. For you, salvation (aka Justification, eternal life) is a GIFT, in which case it CANNOT, just CANNOT be a reward.

My questions please, however:

1. God certainly rewards us because He is just - Hebrews 6:10. Your words. So how come you’re saying now salvation’s PURELY a gift?

2. Rom 6:23 certainly says eternal life is a gift. I don’t, however, see “alone’ anywhere there ,and not seeing it there, I have to assume it’s not the intention of the writer to have it there. This is a recurring tendency of Protestants, I seem to notice: the tendency to see “alone” where none exists nor is even intended. What makes me say “gift ALONE” is not intended? Number 3 below.

3. Rom 2:6-7 clearly says that God REWARDS perseverance with eternal salvation. Surely Paul couldn’t be wrong?