In November I called up a Protestant church. I asked for the assistant pastor's name,telling the lady at the other end of the line about the Catholic apologetics presentation I was preparing for which I needed the Protestant view. The lady gave it to me, as well as the pastor's e-mail address. That started an on-off correspondence , the latest of which I reproduce below.
My comments and questions in red.
Hi Abe,
Let me try to help you on our position on the topic. First of all our doctrines or beliefs are based on the fact that God is the author of the Bible. Since He is the ultimate and sole author of all revelation in the scriptures He can not contradict Himself. However we must be aware of certain realities as far as the Bible is concerned.
There is progressive revelation in the Bible. It took some 1600 years for the Bible to be completed, therefore the teachings in the earlier books are more fully developed in the latter books.
For example murder in the OT is corporeal (Exodus 20:13), in the NT Jesus teaches that murder can also be by words or by our thoughts. Failure to recognize this results in cults being formed that focus on OT teachings about Yahweh or Jehovah being the only God, about the strict observance of Saturday as Sabbath and on abstinence from pork and other “unclean” foods.
Even in the NT the teachings in the Gospels and the Bk of Acts are further made full in the Epistles. The right approach would be to use the OT books (e.g. Psalms and Habakkuk) and the Bk of Acts and filter them or interpret them in the light of the more recent, clearer and more direct teachings in the epistles.
The Book of Acts is a book that chronicles the birth and the development of the Church. It is not normally used to develop major doctrines. The other principle in interpretation we need to use here is Clearer passages interpret the less clear or obscure passages. Otherwise discussions on the bible would be reduced to each party just selecting passages that supports his own claims while ignoring other even clearer statements therein.
Having said that our position on the doctrine of Salvation is that it is the central theme of both the Old & New Testaments (correctly interpreted) & it centers on the Person & the FINISHED (Tetelestai) Work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Okay, I take it that there’s not much difference in your meaning of exegesis/hermeneutics and mine. But, just the same here’s mine:
Unity of the Bible- There can be NO contradiction among the passages of Sacred Scripture. All the truths are mutually in harmony with one another, they illustrate and shed light on one another, and each truth helps us to understand the others and the total plan of Revelation. An interpretation which conflicts with the doctrine deposited with the Church is a wrong interpretation.
Veracity and inerrancy – Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth.
Sanctity- Sacred Scripture is holy and free from all moral error.
Canonicity- All 72 books of the Bible (45 OT, 27 NT) are inspired. Through Apostolic Tradition (and not through the Bible), the Church knew with certainty which are inspired and which are not.
(Catholic Bibles in English: Rheims-Douay Bible; Msgr. Knox Version; Jerusalem Bible (with caution); New American Bible; Revised Standard Version; Navarre Bible. Catholic Bibles in Latin: Vulgate; New Vulgate
If an interpretation pictures the writers as disagreeing among themselves, reject it.
Since Scripture is inspired, it should be read and written with the same Spirit with which it was written.
In reading Scripture, one considers the conditions of the time and culture (the condition on the ground) , the “literary forms” used at the time , and the customary patterns of perception, speech, and narrative prevailing then.
When we use the term SALVATION we use it with three different TENSES in mind:
1. That we are saved from the condemnation of sin. We have been declared not guilty on the basis of Jesus’ payment on the cross. We call this doctrinal truth JUSTIFICATION (Eph 2:8).
2. That we are being saved from the dominion of sin. We call this doctrinal truth SANCTIFICATION (2 Thes 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2).
3. That we will be saved from the presence of sin. We call this doctrinal truth GLORIFICATION (1 Cor 1:8; Rom 5:9-10).
Thank you very much for this explanation. That’s the clearest non-Catholic explanation I’ve seen, but I have to digest it first. Comment follows. But may I say that your stand at least is for justification to be a process, not a one-time event? Is that what you’re saying? Because this seems to be not the usual Protestant line. Apparently too you view justification and sanctification as two separate realities (unlike the Catholics for whom these two are really one and the same reality.
Offhand though I have a few questions:
1) Why is there a need for us to be saved from the dominion of sin if we have already been saved, assuming that by being saved in JUSTIFICATION you mean being assured of heaven?
2) Same with # 3: If we’re already saved in JUSTIFICATION, why is there a need for us to be saved from the presence of sin.
3) Is a sequence to be understood from the above, i.e., 1 first before 2, 2 first before 3?
Now regarding your previous email in which you answered my questions and for which I promised I would give a response, I am sorry but I see that you have NOT yet put your faith in the person and the finished work of Jesus. In the first question a person who believes in Jesus would say “I don’t deserve heaven but because Jesus paid for all my sins on the cross and I completely believed in what He did for me... I know that because of your mercy and grace, You will allow me and welcome me into heaven.” The problem with your answer is that it shows complete disregard for God’s promises in the Bible.
In fact I do believe in Jesus and in everything that he has revealed, as I do believe every one of the faithful does.
Since you have not yet really believed that Jesus offering Himself to die as a ransom for your sins, I guess you are believing that you will be saved based on your own merits, which you cannot do.
I believe that Jesus has ransomed me, but I also believe that it’s not automatic - I have to apply for myself the merits of that Redemption. I know you’re going to say next that “AHA, See? You believe in your merits!” Well, the fact is it’s not that at all. From start to finish it’s God’s grace.
To make it clearer, let me describe what it’s not. (Ref "The Meaning of Grace" by Charles Journet)
When attacked by a snake, a baby monkey would jump onto its mother’s back, and the mother would jump up the trees – the decisive act is the strength with which the baby monkey clings to its mother. This represents the Pelagian view of salvation.
A kitten, on the mother, when threatened, does nothing at all; the mother takes it by the skin of its neck, and does everything. This is the Protestant view.
Both are wrong. The error common to both is to think that divine and human action are mutually exclusive: either it’s man who does the good act, in which case it’s not God; or, it’s God ,in which case it cannot be man.
But who said it can’t be God AND man? For, in fact that’s how it is, God and man together: God and man, grace and freedom, God through man, grace through freedom. If I find myself in a hole with no way out, and God offers his hand, and I take it, it’s not I who did the decisive act but God, who not only offered his hand, but ENABLED me to take it.
Sir, I believe that salvation is a gift, a reward, NOT a payment . If someone works with an eye toward obligating God to pay him, that is anathema. But if someone works hoping that God will reward them from HIS graciousness, not from obligation, then we have a completely different ballgame.
For indeed as Paul says there are two kinds of works:
Two kinds of works
Romans 4:4 type- works outside of grace: works of legal debt, works of boasting, works that expect payment- these do NOT justify.
Romans 2:4-13 type- works wrought by grace (see also Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:12-17; 2 Cor 5:10)- these DO.
Regarding the second question, once again it shows that although you are able to read the scriptures and maybe even quote many verses, the Bible verses are only in your head. They have not reached your heart. You have not appropriated God’s promises. Have you not read 1 John 5:11-13? “This is the testimony: God HAS GIVEN us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who HAS the Son HAS life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that YOU HAVE life.”
The passage is very clear on this issue: If anyone has Jesus (meaning you receive Him and His finished work of salvation) HE HAS LIFE (the qualifier of life is ‘eternal’ in verse 11 and the tense of HAS is present). Do you believe God’s testimony? If not, the Bible says in effect that you make Him a liar. Read the passage again starting from verse 9.
It’s the same God who, using James, says in James 2:24 “not by faith alone,” the same God who, using Paul in Gal 5:6 tells us “only faith working through love” will do, the same Paul who does not even believe in the supremacy of faith, but of love (1 Cor 13:2 “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”)
Besides, as I’ve said in my previous post, you seem to have overlooked “pisteuo.” In 1 John 5:11-13.
Pardon me, I might come out as blunt, but it's not my intention. But you mentioned you sin less and less. You know where I come from, a statement like that will raise eyebrows. It's taken as an indication that the speaker is just the opposite. The farther one goes in the road to sanctity, the more he is supposed to be aware of his inquities, not his sanctity. But don't mind it too much. It's merely a local thing.
Regarding your above comment, again this is an issue of faith. It is God who said in the Bible that I am being sanctified by His Spirit, that means I still sin but its dominion becomes less and less in my life as I learn to humble myself and depend on Him by walking in the Spirit day in and day out (read Galatians 5:16). For me, when God says it, I believe it because His Word is settled in heaven.
Pardon me, but how do you know you humble yourself, or walk in the spirit day in and day out. God’s word is settled in heaven all right, but how do you know it applies to you? David could very well have lain claim to this distinction, was he not one “after God’s own heart”? Yet, look what happened. Apparently around the time he was lusting at Batsheba, he was not.
Let me ask you another practical question: Can you think of a person you know whom you believe whatever he or she says? Maybe your wife (if you have one)? Or a priest, your confidante? Or maybe your best friend? When a person tells you something say if he agrees to meet you at 8 am but he has the habit of coming late say at 9 am do you still believe him when he tells you on another occasion to meet you again at 8 am? I guess not. But what if another person you know says he will come at 8 am and on the appointed day he comes at 7:30 am. Even if he is has a problem he comes and does not break his word, will you trust and believe that person when he says he will come?
My question is have you reached that point in your life when you completely believe God in His Word, that whatever He says, whatever He promises, though they are difficult to comprehend—you believe and hang on to His word and claim them? He says: Eternal life is a gift, He who has the Son (Jesus) has eternal life. That is God’s part. Your part. Our part is to believe (faith).
I submit to you Abe, you need to put your faith in Jesus alone once and for all.
No problem with that really. I completely believe God’s word I believe he will make good every promise he makes. I believe him when he says eternal life is a gift. The problem is, he himself says that, while it’s a gift, it’s something I can reject (John 12:48; Mt. 10:38; 2 Tim 2:12) which I do every time I commit a mortal sin.
And yes, I believe. I have faith. I believe in everything Jesus taught. But it’s not the fiducial faith that you have. Mine is dogmatic faith, which, if reduced to a word, means “obedience done in love.”
My comments and questions in red.
Hi Abe,
Let me try to help you on our position on the topic. First of all our doctrines or beliefs are based on the fact that God is the author of the Bible. Since He is the ultimate and sole author of all revelation in the scriptures He can not contradict Himself. However we must be aware of certain realities as far as the Bible is concerned.
There is progressive revelation in the Bible. It took some 1600 years for the Bible to be completed, therefore the teachings in the earlier books are more fully developed in the latter books.
For example murder in the OT is corporeal (Exodus 20:13), in the NT Jesus teaches that murder can also be by words or by our thoughts. Failure to recognize this results in cults being formed that focus on OT teachings about Yahweh or Jehovah being the only God, about the strict observance of Saturday as Sabbath and on abstinence from pork and other “unclean” foods.
Even in the NT the teachings in the Gospels and the Bk of Acts are further made full in the Epistles. The right approach would be to use the OT books (e.g. Psalms and Habakkuk) and the Bk of Acts and filter them or interpret them in the light of the more recent, clearer and more direct teachings in the epistles.
The Book of Acts is a book that chronicles the birth and the development of the Church. It is not normally used to develop major doctrines. The other principle in interpretation we need to use here is Clearer passages interpret the less clear or obscure passages. Otherwise discussions on the bible would be reduced to each party just selecting passages that supports his own claims while ignoring other even clearer statements therein.
Having said that our position on the doctrine of Salvation is that it is the central theme of both the Old & New Testaments (correctly interpreted) & it centers on the Person & the FINISHED (Tetelestai) Work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Okay, I take it that there’s not much difference in your meaning of exegesis/hermeneutics and mine. But, just the same here’s mine:
Unity of the Bible- There can be NO contradiction among the passages of Sacred Scripture. All the truths are mutually in harmony with one another, they illustrate and shed light on one another, and each truth helps us to understand the others and the total plan of Revelation. An interpretation which conflicts with the doctrine deposited with the Church is a wrong interpretation.
Veracity and inerrancy – Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth.
Sanctity- Sacred Scripture is holy and free from all moral error.
Canonicity- All 72 books of the Bible (45 OT, 27 NT) are inspired. Through Apostolic Tradition (and not through the Bible), the Church knew with certainty which are inspired and which are not.
(Catholic Bibles in English: Rheims-Douay Bible; Msgr. Knox Version; Jerusalem Bible (with caution); New American Bible; Revised Standard Version; Navarre Bible. Catholic Bibles in Latin: Vulgate; New Vulgate
If an interpretation pictures the writers as disagreeing among themselves, reject it.
Since Scripture is inspired, it should be read and written with the same Spirit with which it was written.
In reading Scripture, one considers the conditions of the time and culture (the condition on the ground) , the “literary forms” used at the time , and the customary patterns of perception, speech, and narrative prevailing then.
When we use the term SALVATION we use it with three different TENSES in mind:
1. That we are saved from the condemnation of sin. We have been declared not guilty on the basis of Jesus’ payment on the cross. We call this doctrinal truth JUSTIFICATION (Eph 2:8).
2. That we are being saved from the dominion of sin. We call this doctrinal truth SANCTIFICATION (2 Thes 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2).
3. That we will be saved from the presence of sin. We call this doctrinal truth GLORIFICATION (1 Cor 1:8; Rom 5:9-10).
Thank you very much for this explanation. That’s the clearest non-Catholic explanation I’ve seen, but I have to digest it first. Comment follows. But may I say that your stand at least is for justification to be a process, not a one-time event? Is that what you’re saying? Because this seems to be not the usual Protestant line. Apparently too you view justification and sanctification as two separate realities (unlike the Catholics for whom these two are really one and the same reality.
Offhand though I have a few questions:
1) Why is there a need for us to be saved from the dominion of sin if we have already been saved, assuming that by being saved in JUSTIFICATION you mean being assured of heaven?
2) Same with # 3: If we’re already saved in JUSTIFICATION, why is there a need for us to be saved from the presence of sin.
3) Is a sequence to be understood from the above, i.e., 1 first before 2, 2 first before 3?
Now regarding your previous email in which you answered my questions and for which I promised I would give a response, I am sorry but I see that you have NOT yet put your faith in the person and the finished work of Jesus. In the first question a person who believes in Jesus would say “I don’t deserve heaven but because Jesus paid for all my sins on the cross and I completely believed in what He did for me... I know that because of your mercy and grace, You will allow me and welcome me into heaven.” The problem with your answer is that it shows complete disregard for God’s promises in the Bible.
In fact I do believe in Jesus and in everything that he has revealed, as I do believe every one of the faithful does.
Since you have not yet really believed that Jesus offering Himself to die as a ransom for your sins, I guess you are believing that you will be saved based on your own merits, which you cannot do.
I believe that Jesus has ransomed me, but I also believe that it’s not automatic - I have to apply for myself the merits of that Redemption. I know you’re going to say next that “AHA, See? You believe in your merits!” Well, the fact is it’s not that at all. From start to finish it’s God’s grace.
To make it clearer, let me describe what it’s not. (Ref "The Meaning of Grace" by Charles Journet)
When attacked by a snake, a baby monkey would jump onto its mother’s back, and the mother would jump up the trees – the decisive act is the strength with which the baby monkey clings to its mother. This represents the Pelagian view of salvation.
A kitten, on the mother, when threatened, does nothing at all; the mother takes it by the skin of its neck, and does everything. This is the Protestant view.
Both are wrong. The error common to both is to think that divine and human action are mutually exclusive: either it’s man who does the good act, in which case it’s not God; or, it’s God ,in which case it cannot be man.
But who said it can’t be God AND man? For, in fact that’s how it is, God and man together: God and man, grace and freedom, God through man, grace through freedom. If I find myself in a hole with no way out, and God offers his hand, and I take it, it’s not I who did the decisive act but God, who not only offered his hand, but ENABLED me to take it.
Sir, I believe that salvation is a gift, a reward, NOT a payment . If someone works with an eye toward obligating God to pay him, that is anathema. But if someone works hoping that God will reward them from HIS graciousness, not from obligation, then we have a completely different ballgame.
For indeed as Paul says there are two kinds of works:
Two kinds of works
Romans 4:4 type- works outside of grace: works of legal debt, works of boasting, works that expect payment- these do NOT justify.
Romans 2:4-13 type- works wrought by grace (see also Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:12-17; 2 Cor 5:10)- these DO.
Regarding the second question, once again it shows that although you are able to read the scriptures and maybe even quote many verses, the Bible verses are only in your head. They have not reached your heart. You have not appropriated God’s promises. Have you not read 1 John 5:11-13? “This is the testimony: God HAS GIVEN us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who HAS the Son HAS life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that YOU HAVE life.”
The passage is very clear on this issue: If anyone has Jesus (meaning you receive Him and His finished work of salvation) HE HAS LIFE (the qualifier of life is ‘eternal’ in verse 11 and the tense of HAS is present). Do you believe God’s testimony? If not, the Bible says in effect that you make Him a liar. Read the passage again starting from verse 9.
It’s the same God who, using James, says in James 2:24 “not by faith alone,” the same God who, using Paul in Gal 5:6 tells us “only faith working through love” will do, the same Paul who does not even believe in the supremacy of faith, but of love (1 Cor 13:2 “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”)
Besides, as I’ve said in my previous post, you seem to have overlooked “pisteuo.” In 1 John 5:11-13.
Pardon me, I might come out as blunt, but it's not my intention. But you mentioned you sin less and less. You know where I come from, a statement like that will raise eyebrows. It's taken as an indication that the speaker is just the opposite. The farther one goes in the road to sanctity, the more he is supposed to be aware of his inquities, not his sanctity. But don't mind it too much. It's merely a local thing.
Regarding your above comment, again this is an issue of faith. It is God who said in the Bible that I am being sanctified by His Spirit, that means I still sin but its dominion becomes less and less in my life as I learn to humble myself and depend on Him by walking in the Spirit day in and day out (read Galatians 5:16). For me, when God says it, I believe it because His Word is settled in heaven.
Pardon me, but how do you know you humble yourself, or walk in the spirit day in and day out. God’s word is settled in heaven all right, but how do you know it applies to you? David could very well have lain claim to this distinction, was he not one “after God’s own heart”? Yet, look what happened. Apparently around the time he was lusting at Batsheba, he was not.
Let me ask you another practical question: Can you think of a person you know whom you believe whatever he or she says? Maybe your wife (if you have one)? Or a priest, your confidante? Or maybe your best friend? When a person tells you something say if he agrees to meet you at 8 am but he has the habit of coming late say at 9 am do you still believe him when he tells you on another occasion to meet you again at 8 am? I guess not. But what if another person you know says he will come at 8 am and on the appointed day he comes at 7:30 am. Even if he is has a problem he comes and does not break his word, will you trust and believe that person when he says he will come?
My question is have you reached that point in your life when you completely believe God in His Word, that whatever He says, whatever He promises, though they are difficult to comprehend—you believe and hang on to His word and claim them? He says: Eternal life is a gift, He who has the Son (Jesus) has eternal life. That is God’s part. Your part. Our part is to believe (faith).
I submit to you Abe, you need to put your faith in Jesus alone once and for all.
No problem with that really. I completely believe God’s word I believe he will make good every promise he makes. I believe him when he says eternal life is a gift. The problem is, he himself says that, while it’s a gift, it’s something I can reject (John 12:48; Mt. 10:38; 2 Tim 2:12) which I do every time I commit a mortal sin.
And yes, I believe. I have faith. I believe in everything Jesus taught. But it’s not the fiducial faith that you have. Mine is dogmatic faith, which, if reduced to a word, means “obedience done in love.”
No comments:
Post a Comment