Happy Hallowe'en...?
The following was the write-up I did for Sunday's bulletin. I thought I'd reproduce it here, since I haven't blogged in a while. I edited it so it's not talking about "tomorrow night" anymore, but "last night", etc.
Last night was Hallowe'en, and every year among devout Christians, this odd little holiday always seems to stir up some controversy. "Is it right for me or for my children to participate in such an evil-looking holiday?" It's a valid question, especially since the Bible plainly tells us to avoid the very appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22).
But isn't it all just harmless fun? I thought a brief history lesson might help sort this all out. In ancient England, Scotland, and Ireland, long before they were called such, "Hallowe'en" was a pagan holiday known as "Samhain", observed as a "day of the dead" by the Celtic people. It was, all in all, a fairly nasty party (with the scariness, ghost stuff, and even human sacrifices playing a role). This bit of "fun" spread to Rome when it conquered Britain in around AD 45.
But there's more to this story (here's the good part). The Christian Church continued to grow and spread the Gospel, and, many times was persecuted. Many martyrs gave their lives for the sake of the Gospel, and the Church wanted to honour them. Later, many people who lived exemplary lives, but weren't martyred necessarily, were also to be honoured by the Church as Saints. In the 8th century, Pope Gregory III consecrated a basilica to honour all these saints and martyrs (who had grown so numerous already, that individual dates were impossible to set!) and dedicated it on November 1st.
Why did he pick that day? Because the Church has this beautiful practice of converting not only people, but cultures. And what part of a culture is more in need of converting than a pagan, human-sacrificing, day of the dead? A holiday that already honours the dead very easily converts to one that honours the saints--especially once the rather evil pagan practices are quite done away with. Well, not quite 100 years later, Pope Gregory IV comes along and likes this idea, and declares that November 1st is to be observed as "All Saints Day" by the entire Church. And October 31st is its vigil.
And so, yesterday, we remembered not that ghouls, goblins, and ghosts are returning to torment us, but rather, we acknowledged and thanked God for the lives of His Saints who spread His Gospel to the nations. If our morbid society likes the darker aspects of Hallowe'en, then I suggest that it is not a time to condemn and reject the world, but in its day to celebrate darkness, let us, like the saints who have gone before, shine as an increasingly bright light in the midst of the darkness!
Last night was Hallowe'en, and every year among devout Christians, this odd little holiday always seems to stir up some controversy. "Is it right for me or for my children to participate in such an evil-looking holiday?" It's a valid question, especially since the Bible plainly tells us to avoid the very appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22).
But isn't it all just harmless fun? I thought a brief history lesson might help sort this all out. In ancient England, Scotland, and Ireland, long before they were called such, "Hallowe'en" was a pagan holiday known as "Samhain", observed as a "day of the dead" by the Celtic people. It was, all in all, a fairly nasty party (with the scariness, ghost stuff, and even human sacrifices playing a role). This bit of "fun" spread to Rome when it conquered Britain in around AD 45.
But there's more to this story (here's the good part). The Christian Church continued to grow and spread the Gospel, and, many times was persecuted. Many martyrs gave their lives for the sake of the Gospel, and the Church wanted to honour them. Later, many people who lived exemplary lives, but weren't martyred necessarily, were also to be honoured by the Church as Saints. In the 8th century, Pope Gregory III consecrated a basilica to honour all these saints and martyrs (who had grown so numerous already, that individual dates were impossible to set!) and dedicated it on November 1st.
Why did he pick that day? Because the Church has this beautiful practice of converting not only people, but cultures. And what part of a culture is more in need of converting than a pagan, human-sacrificing, day of the dead? A holiday that already honours the dead very easily converts to one that honours the saints--especially once the rather evil pagan practices are quite done away with. Well, not quite 100 years later, Pope Gregory IV comes along and likes this idea, and declares that November 1st is to be observed as "All Saints Day" by the entire Church. And October 31st is its vigil.
And so, yesterday, we remembered not that ghouls, goblins, and ghosts are returning to torment us, but rather, we acknowledged and thanked God for the lives of His Saints who spread His Gospel to the nations. If our morbid society likes the darker aspects of Hallowe'en, then I suggest that it is not a time to condemn and reject the world, but in its day to celebrate darkness, let us, like the saints who have gone before, shine as an increasingly bright light in the midst of the darkness!
Labels: Hallowe'en, Saints, Salt and Light, St. Andrew's
posted by Gregory at 10:26 a.m.
14 Comments:
That's an interesting piece of Roman Catholic history. Good to know. I would of course differ with what RC's call saints. I think biblically speaking anyone who has trusted in Christ for their salvation is a saint. Not someone who has earned there way to heaven without a day in purgatory.
Jacob,
I can't tell you how much I take offense to such ignorant comments as the ones you made in response to Gregory's post.
Do you even recognize that the history of your church is inextricably bound in the history of the Roman Catholic church? And citing that, that the history of all non-Catholic, non-Lutheran assemblies are based entirely on immature, unfounded, and arrogant rebellion? Before you get too enamoured of your non-Catholic leanings, try doing some research into Catholic history, Reformation history, and the history of the Radicals (of which your church comes from); you may be unpleasantly surprised by what you find.
More, it's a wonderfully sentimental thought to say that all who are saved are saints. It has no basis in history, or logic -- but that seems pretty typical for anti-Catholic folks. Nevertheless, this is another area you should research before you make broad, sweeping comments on the history, extent, and nature of hagiography (study of saints).
And one last parting rebuke: Catholics are not works-righteous, as your "earn their way to heaven" remark states. A quick look at the Catholic catechism will open your eyes to the fact that all their works are simply a natural outflow of the grace-filled life. Sola Gratia is the phrase that drips from every pious Catholic's lips from the early church on.
Now start doing some research before you continue to prove your Protestant ignorance.
Lutheranly yours,
Christopher J. Freeman
Well first and foremost, I don't appreciate your attitude. While I may say thinks that you don't like and disagree with that doesn't give you the right to act as you just have. Even though I state my disagreements with Gregory and Roman Catholocism I've never made such a personal attack on him. You are out of line to do so to me.
Second, if you would like to rebuke me and the doctrine I believe then do so using scripture, because frankly your personal opinion means nothing to me.
Third, I do recognize that there is a comon ground between protestant and Roman Catholic history. Before the reformation that history was one and the same. After the reformation began, then there started to be two sets of church history from that point on.
Fourth, I admittedly know little about the start of most denominations, but I am a Christian because of my faith alone in Jesus to take away my sin not because of the kind of Church I go to. I attend and pastor here because of the solid doctrine and teaching of the word.
Fifth, I don't need to look at history to know that all true believers are saints because that's what the Bible says.(Acts 9:13,26:10-11,Romans 1:7,8:27,12:13,1Corinthians 6:2,Ephesians 1:18,and more) You can be as happy as you'd like to study history until your head roles off, I'll study God's word.
And finally sixth, I have studied the Roman Catholic Catechism and I intend to quote it at certain points of Gregory and I's debate. In fact I think that their catechism proves that they don't believe Jesus alone saves, but that he just get's them started. I don't deny that RC's believe that Jesus Christ's death was necessary for salvation. But, they do believe there is more to salvation than faith alone, which I am defending that as what the Bible teaches.
I believe that James is very clear that works are a result of faith, no doubt. But while this be true, Christians should be moved by the forgiveness and grace of God to show their good works with thanksgiving and joy because they have been saved. But Roman Catholics on the other hand do much of what they do so they can spend less time in purgatory. I think overwhelming numbers of RC's do what they do out of fear and a since of duty instead of joy, to the glory of God.
-Jacob
Chris, thanks for the defence.
Jacob,
First, you know that in the past we have dialogued in a most charitable and respectable fashion. And it is in that same spirit of charity that I'm telling you to suck it up.
You don't know Chris, or the kind of man he is. I do. And if you knew him like I do, you would know that to get such a strong reaction from him, you really did have to say something incredibly ignorant and offensive. And you did.
You justify your offensiveness by saying that nothing you said was directed at me personally--but that's really splitting hairs. You have said in the past that you are concerned for my salvation (a polite way of saying that I am not saved) because I am a Catholic. And then, in many instances, the latest being this, you have proceeded to misunderstand and misrepresent Catholic doctrine.
If it was simply that you honestly misunderstood, your offensiveness would be relatively small, but I have corrected you numerous times on your assertions about how we believe that one is saved, and you continue to ignore my corrections and repeat your really offensive accusations. So yes, in that sense, you have been excessively ignorant (ignoring our theology) and offensive. Perhaps you find it paradoxical to realise that you have been so without actually being "rude".
Second, if you really want Chris to pull out the Bible on you, be my guest. For myself, I wouldn't have dared him. But then, you would just argue that his interpretation of Scripture is wrong, because its Lutheran and not SBC. And round and round we go. That's why we're debating Sola Scriptura in the first place.
Third, you have an odd and interesting view of Christian history. After the Reformation, if you want to get technical, there are myriads of "church histories"--one for every denomination that exalts itself over against its Mother, the Roman Catholic Church. But more to the point, you fail to realise that we have more in common than you think. After all, all orthodox doctrines that Protestants hold was adopted wholesale from Catholicism. Then Protestants started tinkering with some other doctrines, like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, neither of which are taught in the Bible or throughout the 1500-odd years of Church History. But the Bible itself, the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union of Christ, and everything else good and true about Protestantism is Catholic.
Every agreement about the faith in Protestantism is also where they agree with Catholicism. Every major source of disagreement among Protestants was originally a disagreement with Catholicism. Suggest an example, and I'll happily back up that claim.
Fourth, to take a page out of Chris's book, that's another wonderfully sentimental thought. But as St. Joan of Arc said at her trial, "About Christ and the Church, I simply know that they are one and the same thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter." How is this so? Because we are His Body. Worshipping a Christ without giving regard to the True Church (or caring which church can begin to make that claim) is worshipping a decapitated Jesus. It is, after all, the Church which Christ entrusted to teach about Him.
One last thought for the road: Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
Fifth, a "Saint" is a holy one. Hagiographically speaking, there is truly a sense in which we are all saints, because Christ has infused us with grace and righteousness. But that infusion begins and energises our growth toward holiness. It is not a one-time thing. At least, I still sin. And none of us (at least, a very few) will be entirely sanctified (notice that the root word of sanctified is the same as the root of saint) before we die.
As such, when we die, we are not completely holy, which the Bible says is the condition for entering into the presence of God, who is, as Hebrews says, a Consuming Fire. Thus, when we die, with the temporal consequences of sin still clinging to us, it is burned away by God's awesome radiance, until we shine like gold refined in the fire. The fact that we can endure this burning at all without crumbling to ash is solely the Grace of Christ. This refining is what the Church calls Purgatory, and it is fully in line with Scripture, contrary to your again ignorant statements. And a saint is not a saint because he escapes that process, but because at the end of that process, he truly is all holy.
Moreover, the canon of saints simply refers to those people whom the Church declares that we are sure are in heaven. But the canon of saints is by no means an exhaustive list. That is precisely why we celebrate All Saints Day.
In order to study God's word and get the most out of it, you need one or both of two things: a) to be entirely free of bias, or b) an infallible interpreter. Since a) is impossible, we need interpretation. Scripture itself makes that clear (Nehemiah 8:7; Acts 8:30-31 and others). It is the Study of Scripture divorced from an Authoritative Interpreter that has led to the divisions and thousands of denominations that exist today. (That's thousands of histories, if you're keeping score.)
Sixth: "Gregory and my debate"! Chris, for the record, it's at Jacob's blog, if you're interested.
Jacob, you continue to misunderstand and misinterpret Catholicism. Read the Canons of the Council of Trent sometime, and you'll see that without Grace, we can do nothing. You'll also see that it clearly condemns just what you accuse us of believing--that Jesus somehow "gets the ball rolling." Rather, everything that we do--all our works and all our faith, that comprise our loving response to Christ's Grace--are given to us by Christ's grace!
The Bible itself denies Faith Alone, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise. You yourself acknowledge that St. James says that faith must have works, and yet fail to realise that whatever order you would like to put the process in (are faith and works intertwined? Does faith preceed works? Is faith itself a "work"?) the process is still, biblically, "faith + works".
Saying that a Catholic does what he does in order to escape Purgatory is not only extremely judgemental of a person's heart, but it also fundamentally betrays a misunderstanding of Purgatory. For the record, it was, in fact, the lives of Catholic Saints who had outstanding devotion and relationships with God, and a spirituality that far outstripped and outpaced even the highest heights of intimacy with God that I had ever known in the Pentecostal experience (and, without meaning to boast, I want you to know that they were deep, meaningful, and powerful experiences of the presence of Christ that have shaped who I am to this day). Yet these people knew Christ in a system that I thought was just as you describe. Yet, how can that be? It can't--and that's why I began my investigation.
And I have since met more Catholics than I could count who love God more deeply, and know Him more intimately, than I could ever hope to (though I continue to strive).
So please, in sum, do yourself a favour, and read past Chris' harsh tone, and take his advice--at least the advice of knowing what you are talking about. Because patience has its limits with how much falsehood one can tolerate being spread about his faith.
The ironic thing is, Chris' patience ran out before my own--and he's not even a Catholic!
Sola Deo Gloria
Sola Verbum Dei
Sola Gratia Christi
Glory to God in the Highest
And peace to His people on earth
Lord God, Heavenly King,
Almighty God and Father
We worship You, We give You thanks
We praise You for Your glory
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father
Lord God, Lamb of God,
You take away the sins of the world
Have mercy on us
You are seated at the right hand of the Father
Receive our prayer
For You alone are the Holy One
You alone are the Lord
You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ
With the Holy Spirit
In the glory of God the Father
Amen. Amen. Amen!
Well, since I've wasted so much time replying to you here, Jacob, I've probably run out of time to post to our actual debate at your blog...
Patience is a virtue.
Gregory,
We have known each other for well-nigh 10 years now; amazing how time passes so quickly, hey? And from the first time we met, and actually talked (outside EBC's library), I knew that there was a really bright flame of godliness in you.
Since you undertook to investigate the roots and history of your faith, and embrace the Catholic Church, that bright flame has sparkled into a brilliant conflagration. Your posts are so alive with wisdom, intelligence, erudition, and godliness that even as my wife and I sit here reading your latest blogs, and responses, we are time and again stunned; to sum up my impressions of the truths you are parsing on this sight, it would not be unfair to say you are a budding Chesterton (G.K., that is).
I would have no problems telling anyone we know that you are probably one of the most intelligent, Christ-centered men I know. Sarah and I visit your blog quite often and are constantly learning, growing, and falling deeper in love with our Saviour, Jesus Christ. And though we are not Catholic, we are learning to love our Mother Church more and more as we encounter the warm wisdom both she and our Father have infused in you.
You have taken up your cross in a most excellent, and humble way, and I can only hope that I will live in that same reverence someday. Until then, I will read your posts and get to know the view ahead, so that as I stumble with my cross, and get splinters in my back and hands, at least I know that there was a great friend ahead of me to teach me to walk, and the Greatest Friend ahead of him that gives us all the grace to stand.
The Lord be with you.
Christopher
This should be interesting: posting an encouragement to a wonderful friend, and then (almost like a juxtaposition) following up with a letter of rebuke.
Well, anyway...
Jacob,
You stated, "Well first and foremost, I don't appreciate your attitude."
You're a very interesting character, you are. To start, you still have not answered my challenge as to why you would pick on other bloggers' word choices after accusing me of being too picky about words. Then, you have the gall to call me out on my attitude after having just published a flippant comment on saints and purgatory. Do you not see the glaring contradictions in these examples?
I took the liberty of visiting your blog-site, and looked at your profile. You list polemics (Gk. ???????, pol'-em-os) as an area of interest. I will be fair to you here, and take it that you mean that you enjoy lively debate when you refer to polemics. That is the common understanding of the word in Christian, aspiring academic circles. Nevertheless, it is not the historical, or even biblical meaning of the word. Literally, the word has three meanings:
1. Armed conflict, or war (Heb. 11:34; Mt. 24:6; Mk. 13:7);
2. Battle, or fight (1 Macc. 4:13; 10:78; Rev. 9:7);
3. strife, conflict, or quarrel (Js. 4:1).
Not to be too picky about words here, but don't you think it a little odd that you would find verbal warfare interesting, and then bluster and pout when someone sets their proverbial lance against you? The saying, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," comes to mind. In other words, that you would take offense to my attitude while publically advertizing that you enjoy verbal fights smacks a little of hypocrisy, don't you think? But then I'm being too picky about your word choices, aren't I? I should just let sleeping dogs lie, right? Perhaps let the very language you use to make your case mean something it doesn't mean, so that you can be free and clear to prattle off irrelevant comments about my attitude because you feel irreverent to the Catholic Church? Good try. Not going to happen.
"Second, if you would like to rebuke me and the doctrine I believe then do so using scripture, because frankly your personal opinion means nothing to me."
This would mean something to me if you had stated any doctrine in the post I took offense to. And just for the record, I'll quote that post:
"That's an interesting piece of Roman Catholic history. Good to know. I would of course differ with what RC's call saints. I think biblically speaking anyone who has trusted in Christ for their salvation is a saint. Not someone who has earned there way to heaven without a day in purgatory."
Where is your doctrine listed in this post, Jacob? The fact that you think everyone who is a Christian is a saint? You stated that you think that. I believe you that this is the case. It hardly qualifies as doctrine, however, because it is you stating your thoughts, not you stating the unanimous pronouncement of the church you affiliate with. If they teach (indoctrinate) that, fine. But like you demand Scripture from me, I would like to harken your attention to the simple, logical, and respectful practice of citing your sources. Otherwise, your opinion means nothing to me.
"You can be as happy as you'd like to study history until your head roles off, I'll study God's word."
Excellent! Study God's Word. That should be first and foremost on any Christian's mind. We are agreed there. But if you're going to try and parse the historical doctrines of the Catholic Church, do yourself a favour and read the history of how they derive their teachings (doctrine) from God's Word. As Lewis Drummond once wrote in his biography on Charles Finney, "you can hardly call a person educated who doesn't know history." Add to that that God's Word contains a particular history, but is not an exhaustive history of His Church, and you have the dilemma I pointed out to you earlier: you are ignorant. And that is only a bad thing if you don't do something about it. On its own, it's something you can get past (no pun intended).
I think Gregory did a smashing good job of dealing with your other points. I'll end here now.
Without attitude, or pretense,
Christopher J. Freeman
Chris, thanks for your glowing tribute, but you overestimated the time we've know each other. I came to EBC in 1999, so it's only been 6 years! But who's counting? The fact remains that you've influenced me, and apparently I you, in many ways as we spur each other on in godliness.
Melissa read your comment when I got it in my email last night, and was wowed by your kind words. So thank you for giving her something else to be proud of me for :)
And knowing the esteem in which you hold G.K. Chesterton, I am extremely humbled by your kind words.
Thanks again
Gregory
Jacob,
Are you not going to take up these challenges Gregory and I put across to you? I'm hoping you will, since not responding has been your way of dealing with my challenges (at least) in the past.
Christopher
Wow. This is what happens when you take a break from the computer for a day.
Look first of all, let me extend my apology to a point. I'm sorry for not stating my thoughts more graciously. I'm sorry that I have not done as good of a job as I maybe should have when it comes to backing up my statements. Part of that comes from the fact that some of what I've said, I thought would come out in our debate on my site in much more detail then simply here in Gregory's comment section. And I truly am sorry if I've come across as offensive to Gregory and to C.J. both of you, I'm sorry.
You've thrown so much my way, I honestly don't know where to begin. I guess one thing I want to say first is that even though I'm SBC, that means little to me in comparison to the fact that I'm a Christian. I don't believe what I believe because I'm in a southern baptist church, in fact I come here because they teach what I believe. I do believe I have brothers and siters in Christ in many denominations across the world. I believe in one church, that is all who call upon Jesus as their Lord and Savior, are a part of this church.
The thing that I can't recant on, and I suppose there isn't anyway to say this that wont offend you, is that I don't believe that those who trust in the Roman Catholic version of the gospel are saved. I'm sorry, I don't mean that to attack yours or anyones personal character. But I believe that it's faith in Jesus + nothing that causes salvation. I'm truly sorry if that makes you angry with me, but I don't apologize for what I believe the scripture teaches.
My understanding of the word polemics is the idea of defending Christian doctrine with-in the realm of believers. Not that I like to make war. But that really is interesting that that's it's original meaning. I was unaware.
Gregory, I have a thought. In the interest of not letting our emotions get the best of any of us in this debate. Why don't we try something a little different? What if we pick one topic a week, for instance, scripture, salvation, you name it. Then on my site I will blog about the protestant understanding of this doctrine, and on your site you can blog the Roman Catholic understanding of the same doctrine. Then for the sake of being able to get along somewhat, we'll agree to only ask clarifying questions about what was said and not questions with any other motive but to understand better the others view point. That way we are simply informing readers of both side, or both views and they can decide for themselve which is right or wrong, or if nothing else at least it's educational and they don't side with either. That's my suggestion, let me know what you think.
C.J., as far as me not responding to you, honestly it's because I've felt attacked by you from the get go. If that's not the case or your intention, then I apologize for mis-reading you.
And Gregory no matter what you want to do from here, understand that even though I'm not always the best at representing Christ's love, my only heart for you and all people is to know Christ. If I believe that someone's beliefs are leading them to destruction, the loving thing to do is warn them. Is it not?
And the understanding of being imputed the righteousness of Christ, doesn't make us perfect, but we are counted as so in the eyes of God. But at the same time we are being sanctified here on earth being made less like our old selve and more like the new creation we are. But when we die, because we are justified, we become glorified with Christ. So, no I'm certainly not perfect nor is any other person, but if you've been imputed with the righteousness of Christ, you are counted as sinless before the father, and can enter His presence after this earthly life ends. That's our view of justification very briefly summed up.
In Him -Jacob
Apology accepted, on my part...
However, you make some interesting points that I wish to address.
I guess one thing I want to say first is that even though I'm SBC, that means little to me in comparison to the fact that I'm a Christian. I don't believe what I believe because I'm in a southern baptist church, in fact I come here because they teach what I believe.
This is exactly the problem, though; don't you see? You railed against relativism on the original incarnation of your blog, but by your own admission, this is what Protestantism boils down to. Each person becomes his or her own pope--his or her own infallible arbiter of Christian truth.
When I was a Pentecostal, I believed what they taught, until I started digging into it. I realised that certain doctrines of theirs did not line up with Scripture. So I went to a multi-denominational Bible College with the same attitude that you have expressed: namely, I wanted to find a Christian denomination that agreed with me. I had the answers right. I had theology all figured out. Chris can vouch for the kind of attitude that I had at the beginning.
I believed that I believed "orthodox Christianity." Having a great interest in apologetics and counter-cult ministry (I knew several self-proclaimed wiccas in highschool), I strove to learn and demonstrate the full orthodox teaching of the faith, especially in matters of the Trinity and of Christ. Well, I thought, what better place to look than at the Church Fathers, like St. Augustine, who first really developed those doctrines. If anyone would know what they are talking about, it would be them!
Even when reading Augustine (who is far superior to myself, and most other theologians, in intelligence and holiness) I still found myself with the same prideful attitude. "Augustine makes a good point here, but over here, I can't agree with him. And why does he keep quoting from Wisdom and Sirach? You'd think he thought they were Scripture!" I thought I knew enough to say when Augustine was mistaken!
Finally, I realised that a certain interpretive tradition of Christianity wasn't true because it agreed with me. Rather, it was true based on its historical continuity and agreement with the apostles. The question was simply, "Which church is that?"
There is only one Church that takes seriously the phrase in 1 Timothy 3:15, that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth." There is only one church that can trace itself all the way back 2000 years in unbroken succession. And that one Church does not permit someone to approach it with an "as long as I agree" attitude. Rather, it commands and expects us to submit ourselves to it just as we are to submit ourselves to Christ--because it truly is the body of Christ. I love Joan of Arc's sentiment on that, which I quoted above. Christ and the Church simply are one thing--we are His Body!
We've begun to wrangle at your blog about whether Scripture gives authority to Tradition, vice versa, or whether they are simply authoritative in their own right. This misses it. All authority comes from Jesus Christ, and flows through His Church. Scripture is authoritative because it comes to us from the Church. In the same way and for the same reason, Tradition is also authoritative!
It is not up to us to join a denomination because we like the preaching or because we agree with its statements of faith, but because we have humbled ourselves enough to say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth--that it does not teach error by the grace of the Holy Spirit alive in her.
Anything else, to be blunt, is man-focused and self-centred pride.
I do believe I have brothers and siters in Christ in many denominations across the world. I believe in one church, that is all who call upon Jesus as their Lord and Savior, are a part of this church.
Yet you deny the one Church that preserved that faith for 1500 years before Protestantism ever came along. You favour a view of the "body" of Christ that is purely spiritual and intangible. But what point is a "spiritual" body of Christ? If that was what He wanted, He would have left it with His Spirit! He already has one of Those!
Rather, the Body of Christ is something tangible, visible, recognisable! It is the Church! And Protestantism came along and started amputating! It's all well and good to talk about denominations as part of the Body of Christ, but the quarrelling and the infighting among them disqualifies themselves just as dead hair and skin falling from the body is no longer a part of it! It is only by the Grace of God that you are a Christian despite that, but you are one of the "separated brethren" for a reason! I guess I can't say that less offensively, either.
The thing that I can't recant on, and I suppose there isn't anyway to say this that wont offend you, is that I don't believe that those who trust in the Roman Catholic version of the gospel are saved. I'm sorry, I don't mean that to attack yours or anyones personal character. But I believe that it's faith in Jesus + nothing that causes salvation. I'm truly sorry if that makes you angry with me, but I don't apologize for what I believe the scripture teaches.
It's all well and good not to be apologetic over what Scripture teaches, but it would help to actually proclaim what Scripture actually teaches before pronouncing another person damned! The only place in Scripture that "faith alone" is mentioned is in James, where he expressly condemns that concept! I will not apologise for proclaiming Scriptural truth either--and Scripture is plain that salvation does not come by Faith Alone! James 2; Philippians 2:12-13; Ephesians 2:8-10; and many others! Jesus Himself said that "Faith" itself is a "work" in John 6:28-29!
So, one verse explicitly denying it, and three off the top of my head contradicting it, how can you claim that Sola Fide is taught in Scripture? How can you claim that it is not, in fact, you who are preaching a false gospel?
Your understanding of "polemics" is called "irenics". "Polemics" is theological discourse between people of differing faith viewpoints, whether that be Atheist-Christian, or Christian-[insert religion/philosophy/ideology here]. Seeing as what you view polemics to be, how could we have been engaging in polemics at all, if in fact my faith system is not Christian?
As for your suggestion, I thought we had been getting along rather well. This bit of discussion only came about as a needed corrective on your part, and not because you as a whole, or this discussion in and of itself, is offensive. The offensive part is making the sort of unfounded (and yes, ignorant) statements such as you did above. So far I believe we have avoided those admirably well.
The other reason I don't really want to go into your suggestion is that it would involve me using the Youth Group blog for discussions more pertaining to our own side conversations. Our debate on your blog is not directly related to the Youth Ministry at St. Andrew's, and is more a hobby thing of mine. I don't want to constrain myself to such a program. Instead, I would prefer to keep doing what we have been, understanding that I will reply when I am able. As a newly married man trying to found a youth ministry, unfortunately, I haven't had much time. I'm more than half done redoing the response that I accidentally deleted, however. I hope to have that done tonight...No promises, though.
As for readers deciding who is right or who is wrong, that will always be the way it is, unless one of us does, by the grace of God, happen to actually convince the other. The end of our debates will not be when one or the other side accedes, more than likely, but simply when we have run out of things to say that don't simply repeat our arguments.
And Gregory no matter what you want to do from here, understand that even though I'm not always the best at representing Christ's love, my only heart for you and all people is to know Christ. If I believe that someone's beliefs are leading them to destruction, the loving thing to do is warn them. Is it not?
It is, I suppose. But the more loving thing to do is to actually understand what the other believes before simply attacking it. In that you have been uncharitable, not in the particular manner in which you state things. I don't even mind your atrocious grammar all that much ;)
Bishop Fulton Sheen once said that not one person in America hates the Catholic Church. But millions hate what they mistakenly think is the Catholic Church. Maybe hate is a strong word for your thoughts about her, but you certainly fall into the latter camp in this matter.
Thank you for stating so clearly the Protestant view on Justification and Sanctification. That's what I believed for nearly 24 years. However, that is not the biblical description. See my blog article Reflections on Snow for more on that. Christ does not simply impute righteousness to us, but He infuses us with His righteousness. We are actually made righteous, not simply declared so. Yes, it isn't instantaneous--but the Bible uses justification and sanctification synonymously. Luther was the first to dichotomise those terms.
Now, God is a God of absolute reality. He is not one who practices legal fiction. If He simply declared us righteous without making us so, we would not be any more literally righteous for that lie--and when we stood before Him, in our nakedness, and gave an account, the "cloak" of Christ's righteousness will not be enough to save us! Sin cannot be allowed to enter God's presence, no matter how nicely we dress it up!
Rather, God's declaration is literally transforming, just as His words at Creation brought the world into existence, and just as Christ's words did what they said in transforming the Passover bread into His body! The word of God is transformative! Thus, when He declares us righteous, it is neither that He is lying to Himself, nor that we were already righteous of ourselves for Him to say so. Rather, His declaration literally makes us righteous through the Grace that Christ won for us on the Cross! And we remain righteous and we grow in righteousness as we live in Christ and do what He commands!
That, briefly, is the Catholic view on Justification/Sanctification.
Oops. Forgot to complete the link: That's Reflections on Snow
Well, if anyone is interested in reading the debate that Jacob and I are currently engaged in, it is at his blog, To Die Is Gain. So far, it's specifically in the articles "Why the Reformation Was and Still Is Necessary" Pt. 1 and Pt. 2. Make sure you read the comments for my replies. Obviously, I contend as a Catholic that the Reformation was necessary to an extent--and that extent was already progressing before the Protestant Reformers ever appeared. The Catholic Reformation resulted in the Canons of the Council of Trent, which laid out the sum of Catholic doctrines and anathemised (declared heretical) contrary doctrines. It also corrected the abuses of power that had characterised much of the leadership in the Middle Ages.
On the other hand, the Protestant Reformation was not necessary, but on the one hand, it was redundant, and on the other hand, it introduced novel and heretical interpretations of Christianity that were not supported by either the Bible or historical Church Tradition. Yet many Protestants claim these beliefs are "true Christianity", and some, like Jacob, have gone so far as to claim that Catholicism isn't a Christian religion at all.
The debate at Jacob's blog revolves around the two key Reformation beliefs, called the "pillars of the Reformation": Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
Sola Scriptura means "Only Scripture", and is the notion that the Bible alone is our rule and authority for teaching us about the Faith, and that other sources should be at the very least regarded as suspect, if not outright condemned. Catholics, as I have said before on this blog, do not believe this, but hold (and claim that Scripture itself demonstrates) that Apostolic Tradition and the Magesterium (teaching body) of the Church are essential for proclaiming true and correct doctrine.
Sola Fide means "Faith alone" and is the notion that it is only by our faith in Christ that we are saved, and that we can't earn our salvation. While it is true that we cannot earn our salvation through living a good life apart from God's Grace, the Bible is clear that it is Grace alone that saves us, and that we must respond to the Grace of Christ with wholehearted faith and through obedience to Christ's teachings. Now, we say, this faith and these works are themselves the gift of Christ, whose Grace in the first place actually enables us to respond--but we would also stress, as does the Bible, that if we fail to respond, we risk rejecting God's gift of grace and throwing it back in His face.
Now that you understand the background of the debate, I encourage you to check it out, and prayerfully discern whose beliefs are closer to what Scripture teaches. Don't be fooled simply by persuasive words and clever statements, but really dig into the Bible, which both sides agree is authoritative as God's Word, and critically think through what It says to you about these issues. Look up the references provided, asking the Holy Spirit to enlighten you. See what Scripture itself has to say about the Church that Christ has founded--and then see which Church today most accurately resembles what the Bible describes.
The answer to that may be just as surprising to you as it was to me.
God bless.
I keep doing that! Sorry, here are the links to Jacob's blog:
To Die Is Gain. Again, the debate is specifically in the articles "Why the Reformation Was and Still Is Necessary" Pt. 1 and Pt. 2.
Post a Comment
<< Home