Tony Blair, Newly Converted to Catholicism, Seeks to Instruct Pope

[franksolich]

Oh now, Mr. Adams.

The essential basic fundamental elementary teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are:

(a) that God is the "First Cause" of all things, the "spark" that ignites;

(b) that the most important commandment is that one love God; loving one's neighbor is only the second, despite what the primitives might think; and

(c) that the Life and Death of Jesus Christ provide mortal humans the means to Eternal Salvation, and in fact the only means.

And so I am confused.

Where does this contradict Protestant theology?

It seems to me all things other than (a), (b), and (c) are simply disagreement over trifles.

[Sam Adams]

Oh now, Mr. Adams.

The essential basic fundamental elementary teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are:

(a) that God is the "First Cause" of all things, the "spark" that ignites;

(b) that the most important commandment is that one love God; loving one's neighbor is only the second, despite what the primitives might think; and

(c) that the Life and Death of Jesus Christ provide mortal humans the means to Eternal Salvation, and in fact the only means.

And so I am confused.

Where does this contradict Protestant theology?

It seems to me all things other than (a), (b), and (c) are simply disagreement over trifles.

(a), (b), and (c) do not contradict Protestant Theology.

However, I do not think all other things are trifles. In fact, some of these other things are very important.

A typicial Protestant would say that sinners are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. A typical Roman Catholic would deny this. To say that the life and death of Jesus Christ makes salvation possible is true, as far as it goes. But such a statement does not tell us what we need to know, namely, what must we do to be saved?

Another important difference: What is the final authority for the Christian? Protestants say the Bible is the infallible, authoritative, final and sufficient word of God. The Roman Catholic Church says that, while the Bible is inspired, we should have an implicit faith in the official Church of which the pope is the head and teacher.

[franksolich]

A typicial Protestant would say that sinners are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. A typical Roman Catholic would deny this. To say that the life and death of Jesus Christ makes salvation possible is true, as far as it goes. But such a statement does not tell us what we need to know, namely, what must we do to be saved?

I suspect this confusion stems from that for whatever reasons long ago lost in history, the Roman Catholic Church tended to stress "good works" over acceptance of Christ, perhaps making it seem being a "good" person could by itself earn one Eternal Salvation.

It wasn't the government building all of those hospitals, colleges, orphanages, hospices, &c., &c., &c., during the Dark and Middle Ages, and clear into circa the middle of the 19th century.

And so it may have been easy to construe Catholic theology as stressing charity over faith, when it comes to Eternal Salvation.

But the real deal is, going "good works" is meant to enrich one in this time and place, this life, while acceptance of Jesus Christ is meant to earn one Eternal Salvation.

Another important difference: What is the final authority for the Christian? Protestants say the Bible is the infallible, authoritative, final and sufficient word of God. The Roman Catholic Church says that, while the Bible is inspired, we should have an implicit faith in the official Church of which the pope is the head and teacher.

The Bible of course is the final authority.

The Bible however is a very complex thing, and most humans (and all primitives) have not the intellectual and spiritual means to understand it fully, even if one does nothing all his life but read and attempt to interpret the Bible.

For Roman Catholics, the role of the Church is as "teacher" of the Bible.

One should not think too lightly of Popes and Cardinals; even during the most depraved days of Roman Catholicism, these tended to be guys well educated, with extensive knowledge of human languages live and extinct, with ample access to voluminous material.  These were, and are, not ordinary people.

This is the same thing as when I was 15 years old, learning how to drive, and the parents instructed "don't drink and drive," advice which I, happily, followed.  The parents knew, and understood, a great many things I didn't, and so it was just best to take their word.

[Sam Adams]

I suspect this confusion stems from that for whatever reasons long ago lost in history, the Roman Catholic Church tended to stress "good works" over acceptance of Christ, perhaps making it seem being a "good" person could by itself earn one Eternal Salvation.

But only faith in Christ saves. The Roman Catholic stress on good works, over faith, has the effect of misleading souls. Millions of people have gone to eternal damnation, because they trusted in good works, instead of Christ. That's a serious problem.

Protestants and Roman Catholics have made their respective positions abundantly clear. These positions are documented in hundreds of well-considered confessions, creeds, and theological writings. It's not like some sort of great miscommunication has taken place. Protestantism and Romanism are two completely different systems. I sense you may be trying to minimize those differences. I respectfully suggest that this is a mistake.

It wasn't the government building all of those hospitals, colleges, orphanages, hospices, &c., &c., &c., during the Dark and Middle Ages, and clear into circa the middle of the 19th century.

True enough.

And so it may have been easy to construe Catholic theology as stressing charity over faith, when it comes to Eternal Salvation.

But the real deal is, going "good works" is meant to enrich one in this time and place, this life, while acceptance of Jesus Christ is meant to earn one Eternal Salvation.

Actually, no one earns eternal salvation. Salvation is not something one works for, or merits. It is a free gift. And good works flow from a life that has been changed by that grace. And good works will be rewarded in the next life.

The Bible of course is the final authority.

Most Roman Catholic theologians would strenuously disagree with you. The authority of the Roman Catholic Church depends on the notion that the Church, not the Bible, is the final authority.

One should not think too lightly of Popes and Cardinals; even during the most depraved days of Roman Catholicism, these tended to be guys well educated, with extensive knowledge of human languages live and extinct, with ample access to voluminous material.  These were, and are, not ordinary people.

In some cases, this is certainly true. But in other cases, the popes were very ordinary people, and some were worse than ordinary. Pope Alexander VI and Pope Julius II were terrible people, for example.

[Wineslob]

But only faith in Christ saves. The Roman Catholic stress on good works, over faith, has the effect of misleading souls. Millions of people have gone to eternal damnation, because they trusted in good works, instead of Christ. That's a serious problem.

Here I think you are mistaken. The teachings of Jesus were to do for your fellow man.
Acceptance of Jesus as "proof" of an after-life, in a sense, is easy. Giving up material things to help others, even to your own possible detriment, is a bit harder, especially in the times of Jesus, IE: rich man through the eye of a needle.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

But only faith in Christ saves. The Roman Catholic stress on good works, over faith, has the effect of misleading souls. Millions of people have gone to eternal damnation, because they trusted in good works, instead of Christ. That's a serious problem.

I think that's an over-simplification that should be beneath someone of your professed credentials. I'm sure even run-of-the-mill Catholics would leap to offer the defense that no amount of faithless works can save a soul. So if faithless works are impotent works cannot possibly be claimed to hold ascendancy over faith thus discounting your assertion.

Conversely, how about lazy protestants who have no work to show for their presumed faith? The epistle of James would take umbrage with that sort but it would be a stretch to claim James put works over faith.

And if works hold such a distant second as you seem to imply perhaps your savior would have been better served by simply having faith in his crucifixion rather than actually enduring the "work" thereof.

[franksolich]

Actually, no one earns eternal salvation. Salvation is not something one works for, or merits. It is a free gift. And good works flow from a life that has been changed by that grace. And good works will be rewarded in the next life.

You're right on this, sir; it was a quickness of writing that led me to use "earn" rather than "receive [as a gift]".  It is a gift.

[Sam Adams]

I think that's an over-simplification that should be beneath someone of your professed credentials. I'm sure even run-of-the-mill Catholics would leap to offer the defense that no amount of faithless works can save a soul. So if faithless works are impotent works cannot possibly be claimed to hold ascendancy over faith thus discounting your assertion.

Conversely, how about lazy protestants who have no work to show for their presumed faith? The epistle of James would take umbrage with that sort but it would be a stretch to claim James put works over faith.

And if works hold such a distant second as you seem to imply perhaps your savior would have been better served by simply having faith in his crucifixion rather than actually enduring the "work" thereof.

Your earlier posts indicated a lack of seriousness and a tendency to engage in personal attacks, so I decline to respond.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Your earlier posts indicated a lack of seriousness and a tendency to engage in personal attacks, so I decline to respond.

I only respond in kind. Your dismissive insults earned you your keep. Fact is you owe big apologies to a lot of people for your demonstrably false claim (see post, above); people I consider friends.

If you want to be taken seriously you should act seriously...not indignant and insulting.

PS - nice witness you got going on there. Should I be like you?

[Schadenfreude]

I only respond in kind. Your dismissive insults earned you your keep. Fact is you owe big apologies to a lot of people for your demonstrably false claim (see post, above); people I consider friends.

If you want to be taken seriously you should act seriously...not indignant and insulting.

PS - nice witness you got going on there. Should I be like you?

This may be just a crazy idea from an ignorant Catholic, but I do believe that Satan is as evil as God is benevolent. Whenever Christians attack each other, I know that this cannot be something that pleases the Lord. I do think Satan chuckles while Christians eat their own and destroy Christ's church by their own hands ...

[Sam Adams]

This may be just a crazy idea from an ignorant Catholic, but I do believe that Satan is as evil as God is benevolent. Whenever Christians attack each other, I know that this cannot be something that pleases the Lord. I do think Satan chuckles while Christians eat their own and destroy Christ's church by their own hands ...

That's not crazy. Good observation. H5

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

That's not carzy. Good observation. H5

An interesting face-saving gesture.

You'd make a good politician.

[Sam Adams]

Here I think you are mistaken. The teachings of Jesus were to do for your fellow man.
Acceptance of Jesus as "proof" of an after-life, in a sense, is easy. Giving up material things to help others, even to your own possible detriment, is a bit harder, especially in the times of Jesus, IE: rich man through the eye of a needle.

I agree that good works are important. What I reject is the idea that good works can contribute to our justification, or earn forgiveness from God. Jeremiah said, "All our righteous acts are as filthy rags."

Good works follow justification and forgiveness. They do not cause either. The Christian life is the life of a sinner who has been saved by God's grace, through faith alone in Christ alone, and then does good works in response to God's grace. Christians are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone--saving faith (as opposed to a dead, worthless faith) is always accompanied by good works.

[Celtic Rose]

I agree that good works are important. What I reject is the idea that good works can contribute to our justification, or earn forgiveness from God. Jeremiah said, "All our righteous acts are as filthy rags."

Good works follow justification and forgiveness. They do not cause either. The Christian life is the life of a sinner who has been saved by God's grace, through faith alone in Christ alone, and then does good works in response to God's grace. Christians are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone--saving faith (as opposed to a dead, worthless faith) is always accompanied by good works.

I would be very surprised if you found any Christian of any denomination, provided that he had at least basic spiritual understanding, who would disagree with that. 

This entire thread is reminding me of some Religion classes I had in college, people aren't really disagreeing, but the way that they are expressing themselves is making it seem like a disagreement. 

[Sam Adams]

I would be very surprised if you found any Christian of any denomination, provided that he had at least basic spiritual understanding, who would disagree with that. 

This entire thread is reminding me of some Religion classes I had in college, people aren't really disagreeing, but the way that they are expressing themselves is making it seem like a disagreement. 

Roman Catholics disagree with the doctrine that salvation is by faith alone. And most protestants do not agree that the pope is infallible, or that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, or that the bread and the wine in the Mass are transubstantiated into the physical body of Christ.

Yeah, sometimes there's a miscommunication going on. But not always.