benyola.net

Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Biblical Gospel

So, if someone assents to the infused grace of baptism and cooperates with it, he or she is then in a state of grace, or justification. However, the grace that is received through infusion is by no means immutable. When Roman Catholics speak of their sacramental theology, they use quantitative terms with respect to grace, saying there can be an increase or diminution of it. In other words, a baptized person can lose some of his infused grace. In fact, it may be lost entirely, removing the person from a state of justification and putting him or her under the threat of damnation.

(CCC 1129) “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ‘Sacramental grace’ is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. the Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. the fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.”

(CCC 1213) “Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: ‘Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.'”

(CCC 1263) “By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.”

(CCC 1285) “Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the ‘sacraments of Christian initiation,’ whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For ‘by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit.'”

(CCC 1992) “Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life.”

(CCC 1999) “The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification.”

The sacrament of baptism is the first sacrament that is administered to a person in the Roman Catholic Church. Rome holds that baptism conveys grace ex opere operato, and the grace that is conveyed by baptism is the grace of regeneration. This means that when a person is baptized, he is born again of the Spirit, and the disposition of his soul is changed, leaving him justified in the sight of God. Righteousness is “infused,” or poured into his soul. Rome then believes and teaches that the prerequisite of justification, the instrumental cause, is baptism. In Protestant theology, by contrast, the instrumental cause is faith, and God imputes righteousness to the believer.

5 thoughts on “Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Biblical Gospel

  1. Richard Morin

    If you don’t mind, I would like to ask a couple of questions.

    1) Where in Scripture does it say that “Scripture alone” is required? There is a passage in Timothy that says all Scripture is “profitable”, but profitable does not equal “solely”. The Scriptures Paul was referring to was also the writings from Timothy’s youth, the New Testament was not even written yet.

    2) You said “Revelation is entrusted to Christians and every Christian, aided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability, the right and the responsibility to interpret Scripture” – isn’t this what Joseph Smith himself did? And why exactly should we entrust this method when there’s so many denominations claiming to be correct?

    3) How’d we’d get the canon of Scripture? Who put it together in the 300’s? Who was given that authority? And why do you think that the authority would eb taken away when Matthew 16:18 clearly says otherwise?

    4) Have you done studies of the Patristic period? You’ll find that the teachings of the Catholic Church have remained consistent of you look throughout the last 2000 plus years. Have you read the writings of those folks?

    1. Richard Morin

      Specifically, please read the writings of the early Church Fathers regarding Baptism. Also, I really encourage you to read John Henry Newman.

    2. Peter Benyola Post author

      Hello Richard. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and questions. I certainly don’t mind, and I always welcome discussion. I am drawing from your comments that you are probably Roman Catholic. We love you.

      Responding to your questions:

      1) When you ask, “Where in Scripture does it say that “Scripture alone” is required?”, I assume you meant to ask where in Scripture it says Scripture alone is required to communicate a message sufficient for eternal life — which is what we are chiefly concerned with in this discussion. The answer is that even the Gospel of John alone, a single New Testament book, contains a message sufficient for salvation (John 20:30-31). I’m definitely not saying that fact renders everything else in Scripture irrelevant; but from my examination of Roman Catholic claims of Magisterial authority (Catechism of the Catholic Church 82, 95), its teaching is that the Bible is not sufficient for faith and practice of Christians. That means that if we are going to square on the authority of Scripture, then its claims of self-sufficiency are the place we should start.

      2) No, this is not what Joseph Smith did. People who are Spiritually regenerated and indwelt with the Holy Spirit do not take it upon themselves to write their own volumes of scripture contradicting and attempting to denigrate the authority of the Bible in order to elevate their own, and even presume to edit and revise the Scripture itself.

      The other part of your question concerns the existence of different Christian traditions because of divergent interpretations. Please see the Scripture references above to support the point that Christians are equipped and called to interpret the Scriptures. God allows us to interpret His Word ourselves, but He does not give us permission to interpret it incorrectly. Yet, each one of us does this to some degree. It’s part of our fallen condition. But sola Scriptura is not the reason this happens — it’s actually a safeguard against it happening more often than it does.

      3) This is a complex question that I can’t possibly give proper treatment in a blog comment. A very rudimentary answer is that Orthodox Protestants believe the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books. In other words, Protestantism does not hold that the church necessarily was infallible in the formation of the biblical canon. We admit the possibility that in its review and deliberations of which books belong in the canon, that the church could have made mistakes in what it included or excluded. However, the books that were chosen are regarded as individually infallible. The council’s decisions, of course, did not change the nature of the books. Scripture is authoritative within itself — it never has and never will depend on a church council to invest it with divine authority.

      By contrast, the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. That is, not only are the writings of the writings themselves infallible, but in the process of assembling the canon, the church exercised an infallible ability to recognize and sanction those infallible books. Protestants stop short of making such a claim, even in the selection of the biblical canon.

      The central issue of division with respect to the authority of Scripture is the relationship of Scripture and the tradition of the church. For specific information on this issue, please refer to Chapter I, no. 2, and Chapter III, no. 1, of this study.

      4) Yes, I have read some of the Patristic writings. I’m sure I have not read all of them. In fact, in this very study, I referred to Cyril of Jerusalem on a comment that is highly pertinent to the principle of sola Scriptura.

  2. Nick

    Hi Peter, I have a couple questions regarding the canon of scripture that some what touch on your and Richard’s conversation as well as past conversations we have had. 1) Under the view of scripture as a fallible collection of infallible books, does this mean that it is the responsibility or every protestant to decide which books they believe to be infallible? If not, why not? If so, by what means should they go about doing this? Where could they even begin?

    2) Are there other books, either ancient or modern, that one should also look to in an effort to determine whether or not those works are infallible? On what grounds can one be confident on the decision that a particular book is infallible? If the collection is itself fallible, what confidence is there that any individual book in the collection is actually rather than only theoretically infallible?

    3) How would you respond to a Christian that rejected, say, Paul’s letters, or James, or John’s Gospel, or Leviticus on the grounds that he thought them fallible? Or who accepted additional books, such as the Didache, The Apostle’s Creed, I Clement, Judith, the Gospel of Thomas, or A Purpose Driven Life based on the fact that, having read them, he thought they had a rightful claim to infallibility (infallibility via inspiration by the Holy Spirit, just to be clear.) I doubt anyone would consider the Purpose Driven Life infallible, but I hope my point is evidence despite my hyperbole.

    1. Peter Benyola Post author

      Hi Nick,

      Thanks for your questions. I will attempt to answer thoroughly but succinctly.

      1) I would say it is not the responsibility of every Protestant to decide which books we believe to be infallible. Synods such as the Council of Hippo and the Council of Carthage are useful and relevant in church history. I’m simply saying that since those things lie outside the Scriptures themselves, that they might not have been subject to the same superintendence of the Holy Spirit that brought forth the Scriptures in the first place. Though, they very well could have been. It’s acknowledgement of the possibility of human error in the process of canonization, which the Roman Catholic Church does not acknowledge. Protestants recognize that no fiat of the church had the power to invest the Scriptures with authority they already had.

      The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not some kind of free-for-all license for people to arbitrarily choose what from Scripture to believe and what not to believe, or interpret Holy Writ however one wants to. On the contrary, it was and still is intended as a call to the Christian’s accountability, to consistent, sound biblical hermeneutics, and a safeguard against unwieldy personal interpretation.

      Your last question here I believe is the most important one: Where could they even begin? I believe a good place to start is John 20:30-31: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

      2) Not to oversimplify this issue, but Christians should examine the evidence within the Bible itself to verify what books are canonical before looking elsewhere. For instance, the canon of the Old Testament as recognized by Protestants is actually very easy to provide a basis from Jesus’ own words — He canonized the Old Testament in just a few statements, using the order of the books that appeared in the Tanakh (Luke 11:49-51, 24:27, 44-88). All the books in the New Testament accepted by Protestants are books that are written by the Apostles, and they sometimes canonized each other’s writings (Luke 1:1-4, II Peter 3:15-16). Aside from that, yes, there certainly are Patristic and modern writings that deepen our understanding of why we have the Bible we have today. We don’t have room to get into that here.

      A Christian’s confidence in what is Scripture cannot be finally instilled by evidence and commentaries, but only by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit that what the apostles said and wrote is indeed God-breathed (I Corinthians 14:37, II Corinthians 3:4-6). I realize that sounds incredibly subjective because anyone can claim to believe what they believe because of the Holy Spirit — but ultimately, our belief of what is Scripture must be based on sound reason, not all of us can be correct, and even if someone has all the books of the Bible correct, he will never have a perfect and error-free understanding of the content of Scripture this side of heaven.

      3) Well, I believe God inspired those books, consequently, I would respond that unbelief in those books is sin. I would pray for that Christian and ask him to diligently study the Bible, so he will be persuaded by the Holy Spirit of what he is reading. As I mentioned earlier, it is not for every individual to come up with his own canon, but Christians are called to study for themselves to see if what presents itself as the Word of God truly is (Acts 17:11).

      I could address the Protestant view on the Apocryphal books one-by-one, but that would take forever. I would recommend reading some of the resources in the Further Study links in my original post.

      Let’s say for the sake of argument, that the Roman Catholic canon is the correct one and the Protestant canon is the wrong one. Let’s stick with your Roman Catholic Bible, Nick — Apocrypha and all. I’m on your terms now, using your Bible. Please turn with me to John 20:30, 31 (NABRE).

      “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may [come to] believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.”

      Nick, is there enough information in the Gospel of John, within the Roman Catholic version of the Bible, for a person to understand how to be eternally saved?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

19 − = 9