Ecumenism:
What do the members here think of ecumenism of evangelicals with Roman Catholics? Do you think the Catholic church has a false Gospel? I have many years of working with and dealing with Catholic Charismatics and have my testimony of this on the net.
Unity in Christ, not hierarchy
Personally, I find “ecumenism,” “evangelicals,” and “Roman Catholics” in a single phrase hard to wrap my mind around.
The Roman Catholic church espouses many doctrines—core doctrines—with which I am in complete agreement. On the other hand, she also espouses some with which I sharply disagree, and which I don’t see as harmonious with the ones with which I degree. Finally, I believe both that many Roman Catholics are not Christians, and that many other Roman Catholics truly are. I am happy to call those Christians brothers, without any reference to their Roman Catholicism or my evangelicalism. Regardless of the corruptions and distortions that may have prevailed in the Roman Catholic church through history, I find it hard to believe that one such as Martin Luther could have arisen without God’s word and Holy Spirit also being present, leavening the church’s life and organizations.
Our unity is in Christ, not in concord between extrabiblical hierarchies (on either side). Nevertheless, I welcome organized attempts to recognize affinity based on faith rather than organizational affiliation. Our Christian unity is something to be acknowledged where it exists, not created as though by fiat. I understand many of the participants in ongoing evangelical-Roman Catholic dialogue to be doing just that: recognizing that real Christian faith may be found outside their own circle, whatever else may also be found.
Ecumenism
Thanks for your comment brother. With my many years working with Catholic Charusmatics and a leader in the Charismatic movement I have found that there are few if any saved Roman Catholics if in fact they follow the doctrines of Rome. First of all the Pope and the vatican and the catholic churchs do not believe the Gospel of justification and how we are saved. So therefor it is not a Christian church. I have my testimony on my web site or can send it if anyone is interested in my experience working many years within the Catholic Charismatic movement.
Bill
who is a christian?
Hi Bill. thanks for your interesting post you have started. I hope you don’t mind when I question your approach to the Catholic Church that I feel you might hold. I mayself am a protestant christian and am not part of the catholic tradition. As a protestant christian, though, I hold the view that all those who believe in Christ are christians. And this even holds true for those who themselves might not believe that faith is all there is needed. Why? Because if faith is enough to be saved than it is also enough for those who have faith, but also hold other things essential to enter the kingdom of God. Ohterwise it wouldn’t be true that faith is all you need to enter the kingdom of God. Therefore every ‘good’ catholic I consider a christian (without taking away the final judgement that only belongs to God but this equeally accounts for, let’s say, my baptist brother). I want to give an example from the evangelical movement. I have met quite a view evangelical christians who believe that there must be in some one’s life a time and place where you pray the ‘prayer of repentance’or something similar to that. And then you are saved. It is not enough, they say, if you kind of grow into faith. In one evengalical conference someone even told us how you can convince ‘church’ people that claim to be christians but are ‘really just traditional christians, not the born again ones’ that they are not saved by the simple questions: ‘on which day did you invite Jesus in your heart?’ Now. I don’t agree with this view, but I can accept this even though I really believe that this is not based on biblical experience nor language. But what is happening here is that there are christians out there that in my view add something to ‘only faith’ - which is in this case a certain conversion experience that developed within the last century, I would say. But still I do not say that those people are not christians - I consider them as my brothers and sisters, even though I disagree with them in adding something to faith. In the same way I disagree in part with Roman Catholics because they seem to add things to faith as well. But this does not make them a non - christian church for me. The crucial verse in the New Testament for me is 1.John 5.1 and, interestingly, the only defenition in the entire Bible of being ‘born again’: whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born again.’ Do ‘good Catholics’ believe that Jesus is the Christ? Oh yes, they do. mathias
ecumenism
Hi Mathias
Yes, good Catholics believe that Jesus is the Christ but so does the Mormons, so do the JW’s and so do many other cults and religions. believing that does not make you a Christian. when a Catholic say’s that Jesus is the Christ and then believes that works save him and sacrements save him and baptism saves him and the Catholic church saves him and then he goes to purgatory so he can pay for his sins then he nulifies the Gospel and makes him an unbeliever.
You must believe that Jesus is the only sacrifice that can take away sin and make you just in Gods sight.
What ever happened to the Gospel? That is the problem. We have forgoten what the reformers died at the stake for.
Here is my testimony of working with Catholics.
http://hometown.aol.com/azusa/myhomepage/faith.html
Christian = Christ-follower
Aside from all the doctrinal issues, shouldn’t a ‘Christian’ be defined as ‘one who follows Christ’? Christ’s disciple is the one who does what he does, who obeys his commands. Jesus said as much. The distinction he thinks matters is not ‘who buys into the whole Reformation thing?’, but rather, who clothes the naked, who gives to the poor, who visits the imprisoned?
Under that definition, a lot of ‘born-again Xns’ aren’t really following Christ, and according to Jesus, he’ll tell them he never knew them at the final judgment.
Add to this the observation that ‘salvation’ when talked about in the Gospels is salvation from sin, not salvation from hell, and that means that if Catholics bear good fruit (they love God, others and themselves), then they are ‘saved’ in the sense that actually matters. In short: denominational lines rarely matter as much as we think they do. True discipleship is about believing and following Jesus. Many Catholics then, are sisters and brothers in Christ. I’d also argue that some Mormons might be as well… but that’s not where this topic is headed right now.
Peace. -Daniel-
ecumenism
Daniel:
Your letter states that if a catholic has good works then they are saved. You seem to be saying that doctrine does not matter. Whoa, doctrine is the word of God and you can only be saved by hearing the word of God. The scriptures say that Christ is the only way. WE are saved by Grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. We can not do anything to save ourselves and this is where Catholics miss the Gospel. Christ did it all not 99% and then do the rest. I already mentioned how catholics belive that the sacrifice of Christ was not good enough and they have to do all these other things including purgatory to pay for sins. Catholics have to be saved the same way that anyone else does.
As far as Mormons, it is a cult and there president stated that they follow a different Jesus than the evangelicals.
the core of it
thanks Daniel, thanks Bill for your reply. Bill, I have red your testimoney on the net. yes, reformers died for their faith. but unfortunately too often they (or their followers) became persecutors also. The swiss reformers; after they had to stand up against the catholic church, soon later persecuted and killed others. (the ‘anabaptists’). Consider Luther never wanted to have a different church. And then consider the Arians (the spiritual fathers of the from you mentioned Jehova Wittnesses) were persecuted for their faith by the trinitarians… it’s a total mess. As I said I am rooted in protestant tradition, but that doesn’t mean I disregard catholic traditions and understand biblical reasoning behind. Honestly, books like James and verses like Matthew 7.21 and the from you mentioned passage, Daniel, in Matthew 25 is easier to interpret as a JW or catholic than as an evangelical. And then - even the often quoted C.S. Lewis as a good Anglican believed in purgatory. Since I have red your testimoney I am aware how strongly you feel about the false teaching of the Catholic Church. I respect your experience, yet I want you to consider that there really are different ways (or traditions, or interpretations) to read the Bible. Please be aware that when you admit that even though Roman Catholics confess that Jesus is the Christ and yet you say that they are not saved - you actually are re-interpreting 1.John 5.1. And I can respect that since you are following a certain theological tradition. But please also respect theological traditions that, for example, re-interpret Paul’s ‘faith alone’ statement with, for example, with James 2.24 ‘you see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.’ Honestly - and you don’t have to give me an answer to this - wouldn’t you wish (as I sometimes do) that James would never have said that? Of course we can now try to interpret it ‘with the wider context of God’s word’ or with ‘the culture and the specific situation James was talking into’, etc. But when others do the same with Paul’s and Luther’s ‘we are saved by faith alone’ statements - shouldn’t we respect others also when they interpret these verses ‘with the wider context of the Bible’ etc? I think we should. I am quite aware, Bill, that we could go on and on and on about different verses in the Bible and their meaning. If 2000 years of church history hasn’t resolved these conflicts then we will probably not be able to do that with a couple of emails. What I want to ask you is this: would it be possible for you to stand firm in your own tradition, yet accept other christian traditions and see biblical and historical reason behind them? Can you see yourselve as part of a certain christian tradition and acknowledge it as a valuable tradition, yet amongst other christian traditions? Are you willing to prayerfully question your own bordeline between who is a christian and who is not a christian and look with this matter beyond interpretation of scriptures and traditions? If the above is not possible; would you accept that the final judgement of who belongs to God and who doesn’t is with God and that you possibly might not exactly know the outcome of this? thank you. mathias
Mathias:You have disregared
Mathias:
You have disregared the fact that catholics nulify salvation by the belief that they have to pay for their own sins to be saved. They deny the sacrifice of Christ for salvation.
Also James does not contradict Paul at all. If you will study both men you will find that James was talking about showing his faith by his works to men. You are saved unto good works not by good works.
The document, “Catholics and Evangelicals Together: The Christian Mission in the 3rd. Millennium” claims that all Catholics are Christian, hold the same faith as evangelicals, and are our “brothers and sisters in Christ”. If so, then the Reformation was a tragic mistake which we all must denounce.
For 1000 years before the Reformation there were always groups of evangelical Christians outside the Catholic Church, millions of whom were slaughtered for obeying Scripture instead of Rome. Through the example of these Vaudois, Albigenses, Waldenses and other early evangelicals, and from the Bibles they preserved, a few Roman Catholic priests and monks realized that their Church didn’t preach the truth and that they and their fellow Catholics were not saved, but lost. They began preaching salvation by grace through faith instead of Catholicism’s false gospel of sacramental rituals and works. For this they were excommunicated and untold thousands more were martyred.
Such is the heritage of today’s evangelicals, which this document now rejects. We are asked to believe that the Reformers were deluded, that like all active Catholics today they were saved and didn’t know it. Already the declaration is being translated into Spanish, Polish. Portuguese and Russian for circulation throughout Latin America and Eastern Europe. Soon it will have a revolutionary impact worldwide.
In a survey of thousands of Catholics who were saved and left that Church, “not one” ever heard the true gospel. “Nor one” was saved by being a Catholic, but by believing a gospel that was anathema to Catholics. Knowing that these millions of Catholics are lost, causes evangelicals to work day and night to bring them the gospel.
And now we are asked to refrain from sharing the gospel with those who desperately need it and to assume them already saved, when their own doctrines forbid this assurance. It is outrageous that leading evangelicals have placed nearly 25% of the world’s population off limits to evangelization. Missionaries must now leave Catholic countries such as Spain, Italy and those in Latin America. Such is the tragic implication of this document.
“Without these five confessional statements—Scripture alone, Christ alone, grace alone, faith alone, and glory to God alone—we do not have a true church, and certainly not one that will survive for very long. For how can any church be a true and faithful church if it does not stand for Scripture alone, is not committed to a biblical gospel, and does not exist for God’s glory? A church without these convictions has ceased to be a true church, whatever else it may be.” —James Montgomery Boice
salvation?
I highly recommend McLaren’s blurb on salvation in ‘Adventures in Missing the Point’, or a thorough read of his ‘The Last Word and the Word After That’… I don’t mean to be rude Bill, but Mathias was being clement when he was attributing your views to your tradition and how you read Scripture. I think the words ‘saved’ and ‘salvation’ in modern evangelical lingo have been emptied of their meaning. When James talks about salvation through faith AND works (and that IS how he words it), then he is talking about God’s expectations of us in the evangelical sense, and maybe about our eternal destination. But when Jesus talks about salvation, or when Paul’s jailer says “what must I do to be saved?”, the issue of eternal destination is far from their mind. Salvation in the NT is about life in the Kingdom of God, it is about the concrete overcoming of our sins. The pathway to God, that relational freedom that we have, is a gift, it is grace, it is free, given to us by Christ, granted. But (and this is straight from McLaren) the Bible consistently teaches ‘salvation by grace, and judgment by works’. To Mathias I want to say, a resounding yes! We should be able to accept other views of Christianity… Our definitions of orthodoxy should be generous. An interesting question, I think, would be more along the lines of, “if we’re going to focus more on the center than on the edges, what should our center be?”. The reason I say this is because if we making ‘believing that Jesus is the Christ’ the center of Christianity, then demons are brothers and sisters in Christ. That can’t be right obviously. So what, specifically, is the center? What is the Gospel for that matter? Is it not intrinsically wrapped up in the Kingdom, and therefore in our behavior and how we live?
ecumenism
Daniel said” The reason I say this is because if we making ‘believing that Jesus is the Christ’ the center of Christianity, then demons are brothers and sisters in Christ. That can’t be right obviously. So what, specifically, is the center? What is the Gospel for that matter? Is it not intrinsically wrapped up in the Kingdom, and therefore in our behavior and how we live?
Bill answers
The Gospel is that Jesus is the only way, that He is the Son of God who died for all our sins and raised from the dead for our justification. We are saved by Grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone and not of works lest any man should boast.
No we can not have unity with other “Christian” reigions so called if they do not beieve this. Some may say the believe this but then void it by saying they have a part in their salvation. Catholic are just one of these.
The contemporary ecumenical movement is as dangerous as was the coming of the Judaizers to the Early Church with their false “gospel” of “JESUS plus works of law” (Acts 15:1; Galatians 1:6-9; 2:1-21). We need not be surprised by the ecumenists among us today. The Judaizers were so influential that even Peter and Barnabas were temporarily drawn away. Paul immediately and publicly accused them of hypocrisy and pronounced the curse of God on the false “gospel.” Peter and Barnabas saw the Truth, repented, and joined with Paul in the first Council of the Church in Jerusalem, where the Holy Spirit led the Church to settle the message of the Gospel for all time (Acts 15:2-28).
The main leader in the current ecumenical movement is the Roman Catholic Church; it teaches the same heretical “JESUS plus works for righteousness” message as that of the Judaizers. Like Paul and all the Apostles, we have the blood bought privilege of preaching the Gospel of “JESUS plus nothing.” Through the finished work of Calvary, Jesus Christ provided our full Salvation. HE “became for us wisdom from God-and righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).
Peter and Barnabas
Bill,
I’m curious. Would you have recognized Peter and Barnabas as your Christian brothers, at the time they were “drawn away”—though without “having unity” with them?
I’m just trying to nail down what’s at stake here.
(Personally, I do not find it contradictory for one to believe he is saved by grace through faith, and also to feel he must obey an apostolic command in order to be initiated into the covenant. I am trying to distinguish between this, which you seem to characterize as “grace + works,” with what I could characterize as “grace + correct doctrine.”)
ecumenism
Submitted by Chris on 14 July, 2005 - 2:27pm. Bill,
I’m curious. Would you have recognized Peter and Barnabas as your Christian brothers, at the time they were “drawn away”—though without “having unity” with them?
Of course I would have recognized Peter and Barnabas as a Christian brother and tried to minister to them. That question does not apply because it is not comparing apples to apples.
We need to be careful of the ecumenical spirit and remember that it is a thing of the world. It is not of God. We cant not have unity with those that do not preach the Gospel of free Grace.
The true gospel is the good news of salvation conditioned on the blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. Any other “gospel” that conditions any part of salvation on the sinner is a damnable false gospel.
What is the gospel?
I do not have time to reply on my own, but I’d like to recommend an article by N.T. Wright on Paul’s theology in his letter to the Galatian church, with special emphasis on the meaning of ‘gospel.’ link here:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Gospel_Theology_Galatians.pdf
It seems to me that many here are importing Evagelical definitions of ‘gospel’ without asking what the word meant to Jesus, or Paul, or their contemporaries. In addition, there is a lot of talk about ‘who is saved’, without, as far as I can tell, any use of the actual texts in which ‘what was required’ was discussed in early preaching. I’m referring to things like “repent and be baptized” or “confess with your mouth that Jesus is lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead.”
Sorry to be brief. I hope the article give some impetus for further discussion in this thread!
Peace, Eric
A gem that deserves attention
Eric’s link to the item by N.T.Wright seems relevant to more than one of the active threads at the moment - so I’m highlighting it again. It deserves attention, if you have not come across it already.I’m printing it off at the moment - to add to the mounds of paper from OST which is already cluttering up most of the spare bedroom.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Gospel_Theology_Galatians.pdf
Eric,Wright sums it up that
Eric,
Wright sums it up that the Gospel is “The Gospel of the true God”. Maybe we sould approaach this in a different matter when it comes to ecumenism and if we can have unity with Cathlics or any others that do not believe we are justified by Grace alone and when they say we are they void their belief by other religious doctrines. So, Maybe what justifies us should be the question.
what is the Gospel
Bill It appears that one of the greatest stumbling blocks to ecumenism is forensic justification, the imputed alien righteousness of Christ to the unworthy sinner by virtue of union with Christ through faith. If ecumenism is to succeed, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has got to go. Unfortunately, the gospel will go with it.”
center of faith
Daniel: I want to get back to your question regarding ‘what should our center be’. I think this is a very important question and I would like to know more about what you mean when you say it is wrapped up in the kingdom. I would really like to know more of what is behind that. your answer seemed to be really easy for me earlier in my life. I would have probably used phrases like: being born again, conversion, ‘Jesus in your heart’. Everyone who kind of doesn’t seem to understand their christianity along those terms would just nor be a real christian.
Today I realise that those are phrases that were filled with meaning based on my (rather evangelical) upbringing. I do realise now that other christians fill those words with different meanings, if they use it at all.
Also, Luther’s formula ‘only scripture’, ‘only grace’, only ‘faith’ i have learned to understand as a lutheran formula, which is part of the christian tradition, but not as the formula of a christian per se. The orthodox church, for example, puts great emphasis on the councils of the church, even more than the Catholics, which is also a valid way to understand christianity because it affirms that there is not just ‘me and the Bible’, or ‘me and the Lord’, but that our life as a christian has actually something to do of where we come from and from ‘the clouds of saints’ that have preceded us.
I think almost all christian traditions would agree that we should have ‘unity in essentials, and diversity in unessentials’. The problem is of what those traditions consider as ‘essentials’. For evangelicals, for example, baptism generally doesn’t play an essential role in salvation, whereas a certain conversian experience does. For Catholics being Catholic is important and the sacraments are essential, as well as for Lutherans.
Actually, the fact that christians of different churches consider other christians not as christians is something I am most sad about. And it really frustrates me. And I don’t have an answer.
One of the thoughts I have about this and the german protestant professor Klaus Berger in his book ‘Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums’ takes this as his basis of discussion, is that there are different theologiscal traditions within the NT that are reflected today. And I find it interesting to realise that indeed if you look at different churches and denominations, many have a certain NT theology underlying. For example pentecostals to prove the ‘second experience with the Holy Spirit’or how ever it is called, base their reasoning mainly on the lukanian tradition (Luke and acts), whereas evangelicals really like Paul etc. So much effort is made in ‘harmonising’ everything in the NT, but maybe it is better to acknowledge differences, since there really might have been different opinions. And I personally actually don’t think this interferes with the idea of having a ‘canon’, the Bible as a basis of the church. would one way to resolve denominational differences therefore be found in actually NOT trying to reslolve them? Would it be apropriate to acknowledge a certain expression of Christianity as one expression of a NT theology and thereofre as a valid one, even if this is not the tradition I myself am part of?
But still, the question remains. What is the core of it? What is it, that NT christian groups acknowledged as their common grounds? Klaus Berger’s summary of the common ground of all NT christian groups was that Jesus is the son of God, the Christ. Here they all agreed. (What it meant for NT christians to say ‘son of god’, and ‘Christ’ is an entirely seperate topic).
And to develop this thought a bit further; if this is the right ‘dogma’, then it is up to the individual christian to really live it out, so that we do not belong to those who say, ‘Lord, Lord’ but not do the will of God. (Matth.7.21). What do you think, Daniel? What do the others think?
Rayna ReneeI am new to this
Rayna Renee
I am new to this forum, but find it very interesting. Bill, I am in agreement with you. I do not believe the Reformers gave their lives in vain. Truly the gospel today is attempting to be dissolved into faith and works to justify us before God. But like you said, We are saved by God’s grace by faith in God’s work for us in Jesus. He is our righteousness, sanctification and redeption. We can add nothig to this work of God by anything we do. We are sinful, and can only read and accept the truth of God’s wonderful message to sinful man.
Rayna
Bill, I hope you
Bill, I hope you have not stopped posting, as I find your comments very clear on the gospel. I would to view your web page if you could send me the link.
Thank you
And now for something completely different ...
I have to confess I find the discussion skewed from the outset by the way in which the original question was framed. One of the things I have benefitted from most richly in the United Reformed Church is their insistence that the Christian Church is broad. They - we - refuse to “unchurch” anyone. The burning question, therefore, isn’t “Can catholics and evangelicals and unite”, but “Why DON’T they unite?”
It’s all too easy to find points of disagreement. There is an enormous “linguistic” gap - we all use very different language whose historical roots are in disputes and polemic. The greatest problem facing ecumenical relations is always the “faith and order” stuff. But that is always and necessarily a secondary issue. Ecumenism happens on the ground first, and is born of the Spirit.
Decoding theological language - particularly offical church-speak - can be difficult and exhausting. Mostly, it results in surprising agreement. So the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church have agreed a common understanding of “justification by faith”. It’s high time most of us stopped thinking we are still fighting the theological battles of the Reformation!
But there’s an easier way of decoding theology. It’s praxis. What we do is not simply a practical issue, but a theological one, because praxis is disclosive of truth. Remember the parable of the father and the two sons. He asks one to do something,a nd the son says he will, but doesn’t. The other says he won’t, but does. Who does the will of the father? Or take the parable of the Good Samaritan. The parable is profoundly disturbing to theological purists because Jesus’ use of the Samaritan moves beyond “doing what is right”. The Samaritan, whose theology is clearly erroneous, demonstrates that he understands truly what it means to love God and neighbour.
Does the Catholic Church have a false gospel, Bill asks. In South Africa, under Apartheid, the Catholic Church had probably the best consistent witness to what the gospel meant in an Apartheid society. It was in the forefront of opposition to Apartheid, while those of us (I was there and one of them) in the evangleical churches agonised over whether the gospel was primarily about soul-saving, rather than politics. They had a better gospel than my Baptist Church!
But here’s my beef with Catholics and ecumenism. They will insist on dividing when it comes to Communion! Their reason is that Communion can only be the celebration of an underlying Communio - by which they mean unity under the Pope. In other words, it’s a church order issue. It’s not that they do not regard non-Catholics as not Christian.
For me, this raises a fundamental question about the gospel - NOT whether or not they believe it, but why they don’t act on it. If Communion expresses the truth of Christian unity - celebrates it sacramentally - then why will they withdraw from ecumenical gatherings when there has been real and perfect unity up until then, and a commitment to a common goal? It’s painful and it’s wrong.
I go back to South Africa to find an answer to the question about what constitutes the gospel, ecumenicity and true Communion. In the common struggle against Apartheid, Catholics and non-Catholics demonstrated, marched, prayed, protested, went to prison and were banned together. Catholic South Africans then asked, “How can we NOT take Communion together when we share so intimately in Christ and the gospel of the Kingdom? Surely to refuse is to deny our praxis of Christian unity?” They asked the Catholic hierarchy whether they ought to obey the teaching of the Church or the voice of their consciences, based on the daily reality of ecumenism. The answer they received was that Catholic morality taught that the conscience has a higher moral claim than anything else, and that, living as they did and believing as they did, it would be a sin to refuse to share in Communion. So they did.
That is what I mean about praxis being disclosive of truth. Ecumenical reality is gospel reality and Spirit reality and we ought to be doing everything we can to foster it. I am sad that a forum like this seems more interested in debating the ecumenical question as though it was (a) optional and (b) possibly undesirable. It’s time we realised what a scandal church division is. We live with it every day, yet to people outside the Church, the divisions are about competing against eachother for our “market share” of the faithful. We look like dodgy used car salespeople. Church division is a scandal and an affront to God. If the Emerging Church has something to offer, one of the gospel imperatives it ought to be fostering is the unity of the Christian Church. Truth IS important. But we would be far less suspicious of our Christian brothers and sisters who speak a different language, worship differently and order their churches differently if we took on board that Truth is something to be lived and done.
Official Roman Catholic Canon
Official Roman Catholic Canons Concerning Justification: Canon 30:
If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed.), pp. 214, 46).
I find it very interesting and disturbing that no one responds to any reference for my reasons of not having ecumenism with Roman Catholics.It is the doctrine of justification that seperates us as Christian and non Christian. How can you have unity with those that betray Christ and His sacrifice. This is what Rome does. It seems that those here seem to think that everyone that says they believe in Christ is a Christian regardless of what they believe about the doctrine of Grace, justification and that Christ paid the complete sacrifice for our sins and only His work saves us and none of our own works save.
The following statement is not believed by Rome. Therefore they deny the Gospel.
“My commitment to Jesus Christ does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My surrender to His Lordship does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My obedience to His Word does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My love for the Saviour does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My ability to fulfill all the demands of discipleship does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My behavior and conduct does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE.
God’s saving grace is to be found in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ WHO ALONE CAN SATISFY GOD’S HOLINESS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS and be to the believing heart God’s “so great salvation”! “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:12; all verbs are in the present tense).
Have you been justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus? Is your hope based upon what you have done or is your hope based upon Jesus’ blood and righteousness? “I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but WHOLLY LEAN ON JESUS’ NAME!” May we be standing fully on Christ the solid Rock, not upon the sinking sand of our own fragile commitment.
—George Zeller (Revised 11/99)
We need to be careful of the ecumenical spirit and remember that it is a thing of the world. It is not of God. We cant not have unity with those that do not preach the Gospel of free Grace.
This world still faces the greatest deception in the whole history of humanity. That is what is coming: the ultimate deception; the ultimate version of the end-time system — political, economic, social and religious in nature. If we are alive at the time, you and I will also have to face it and deal with it.
But thankfully we also know that the whole world will be liberated from that deception when Christ returns.
Catholic and Lutheren accord
Bill
Lawerence writes: Decoding theological language - particularly offical church-speak - can be difficult and exhausting. Mostly, it results in surprising agreement. So the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church have agreed a common understanding of “justification by faith”. It’s high time most of us stopped thinking we are still fighting the theological battles of the Reformation!”
Actually Lawrence if you study this so-called agreement between the Lutherns and the Catholics you will find that the Catholics did not change there views on justification.
These were mostly ELCA Lutherans and others excluding the Missouri Synod whose president said it was a betrayel of the Gospel by these Lutherns that signed the accord. These are days of great deception and the Pope and Rome has made it very clear that its purpose is to bring back all its so called seperated brethern into the Catholic church. But it seems many Evangelicals have been blinded to this fact.
Trying to say this gently
Bill, there is only one thing that cuts Christians off from others and that is the Spirit of Christ. Not any doctrine. We can get our theology wonderfully right and still be those whom Christ never knew. Or get our theology spectacularly wrong and yet be good and faithful servants of the living God.
Let me make the same point differently. Theer is one thing that cuts Christians off from others and from God. It is lack of love, because love is the fruit of the Spirit. The clearest sign of the Spirit’s presence is the scandalous all-embracing welcome of others. One of the clearest sign of its absence is divisiveness, sectarianism, schism and the instinct to brand difference as “beyond the bounds”.
I suspect that the reason that no one takes up the point as you wish is because they find the tenor of what you say deeply offensive. Your experience of Roman Catholics notwithstanding (I read your post), I have to say that I think you are in a place where you simply cannot or will not see any evidence that contradicts your assumptions about Catholics. It reminds me of the dwarves in CS Lewis’s The Last Battle, who cannot see Aslan because they have imprisoned themselves in a imaginary shed of their own construction.
The greatest deception we face is that God’s grace is somehow less amazing, transformative and all-embracing than we either expect or would like it to be.
I trust that we are able to disagree honestly, openly and fundamentally without causing offence. That is the spirit in which this is offered as a reply.
belief and praxis
Thank you for your posts Lawrence. You said what I had been meaning to say. Namely that what matters to Jesus, based on his own parables, is the Kingdom. The Gospel, the Christian ‘center’ IS and MUST BE the Kingdom of God. NT Wright has argued this point over and over again. The Kingdom is not defined by doctrine, but rather by lived love. Love of God and love of others. Salvation should not be understood, as Bill seems to think of it, as an invisible, one-way, non-refundable ticket to heaven, but rather as the concrete, existential overcoming of the Enemy in the here and now. Scripture tells us that we will know our brothers and sisters by their fruit. If the Catholic Church fights apartheid in South Africa, then let’s welcome then and love them like Christ will at the final judgment. Well done good and faithful servants. Let the Church bring Christ’s salvation to the world. That salvation is the Kingdom. Brian McLaren introduces an interesting concept in his The Last Word and the Word After That… namely, that of a congregation that has as its focus a goal (the advancement of the Kingdom) instead of a piece of paper (a statement of faith). Would that the Church would focus more on its mission in this world (embodying Christ’s love to all—for that is what it means to be the Body) instead of the doctrines (as important as they might be) that so often divide us.
Peace, -Daniel-
Amen to that!
Amen to that vision of the Church, Daniel! May it be obvious b our fuits that we are Christ’s. These speak loudest and truest.
Rayna ReneeBill, I agree
Rayna Renee
Bill, I agree with you 100%. I am thankful to read your comments.
Rayna
What ever happened to the Gospel?
After reading the last two letters I have come to the conclusion that it looks like those here are saying that salvation is love and works regardless what one believes about Christ. You talk as if doctrine is not important. Doctrine is the word of God and if that is not important then you are very eternaly mistaken. Or you are universalist.
In a survey of thousands of Catholics who were saved and left that Church, “not one” ever heard the true gospel. “Nor one” was saved by being a Catholic, but by believing a gospel that was anathema to Catholics. Knowing that these millions of Catholics are lost, causes evangelicals to work day and night to bring them the gospel.
Bowing out ...
Bill, if I were pushed, I would say precisely what you fear, but only because I believe love in action IS what doctrine is all about. Let me try just one more thing on you. I know a black pastor from my South frican days who is Pentecostal minister. He was arrested in the 1980s by the security police for his pastoral work among detainess - women and children from his own congregation and community. He was eld in solitary confinement and tortured. His torture was supervised by an elder in his own congregation! He asks how it can be that they believe the same things, say the same creeds and speak in tongues together in a service, and yet this can happen.
However faith is formulated, and however closely they’d agree, they do not in fact believe the same thing, or in the same Jesus. SoI’m opting for praxis as fa less ambiguous and far more theologically significant than doctrine.
A final point. You ask us to read your post about your experience of Catholics as justification for your views and as evidence for your case. idence of testimony, I presume. What if everyone else on this forum wrote with testimonies like have of how Catholics are indisputably as Christian as yu or I? ould that reassure you, or make you revise your opinion? And if not, wil you not recognise that this is not an honest discussion in which people are genuinely open to change? That was behind my entry into this conversatio about the discussion being skewed. You’ve set it up as a question, but you have nointerest in an answer that might challenge your own opinions.
I’m not suggesting a lack of integrity on your part - merely a blindness to an internal dynamic.
Shalom.
parable
Bill,
I am curious to hear what you make of Jesus’ parable of the goats and the sheep. In discussing the final judgment, Jesus makes no mention of proper doctrine (there are references to that elsewhere, granted). What makes or breaks one’s eternal destination, according to God himself, is how we treat the poor, the orphan, the widow, etc. What do you make of Christ’s parable if salvation is only about believing certain propositions about Jesus? Of course, I believe (and Lawrence referred to this tangentially) that actions REVEAL belief, such that people who act lovingly usually believe something that pushes them to action… But as Lawrence said, if we’re talking about the gospel, then isn’t it simply and beautifully that ‘the Kingdom is at hand’?
I see no problem with the
I see no problem with the goats and sheep. The goats are the unsaved.
What Im seeing in this thread is a lot of Roman Catholic thinking.
You say” I am curious to hear what you make of Jesus’ parable of the goats and the sheep. In discussing the final judgment, Jesus makes no mention of proper doctrine (there are references to that elsewhere, granted). What makes or breaks one’s eternal destination, according to God himself, is how we treat the poor, the orphan, the widow, etc. What do you make of Christ’s parable if salvation is only about believing certain propositions about Jesus?>>>>
I did not say that “only” believing. Faith without works is “no faith”
You say that it is our works that determine our destination. That is to deny that we are saved by Grace alone. That does not mean that works are not important. Again, this forum is very Catholic in its thinking.
In 1994 a group of Catholic leaders and Evangelical leaders drafted a document known as ECT, short for “Evangelicals and Catholics Together in Mission.”(5) The Pentecostal Evangel carried the story of ECT in the May 29, 1994 issue, with the title, “Evangelicals, Roman Catholics pledge to work for unity (italics mine).” Having read the document, I find it to be a plea for visible unity at the expense of Truth. For example, the one absolute essential for being in the true Church, “justification by faith,” is barely mentioned, though it is one of the major doctrines that irrevocably divide Protestants and Catholics. ECT forbids “proselytizing.” In practice, it would stifle the evangelizing of Catholics. Since we are Evangelical Pentecostals, will we be expected to leave millions of lost souls in the darkness of a false “Gospel” for the sake of man-made “unity”?
There are two widespread misunderstandings: (1) “If we love people of all faiths, will we not desire visible unity with them?” To that I reply: we must define “love.” Humanistic love will cause us to compromise the Gospel to please people (Gal. 1:10); God’s love refuses to compromise “the Truth of the Gospel” (Gal. 2:14). (2) “If people speak in tongues, should we not desire visible unity with them, regardless of their doctrine?” My response: God desires that all people experience being filled with the Spirit, but experience alone is not an adequate basis for unity. The “one-ness” for which Jesus prayed demands Truth; the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, guiding the Spirit-filled “into all Truth” (Jn. 16:13).
faith and only by faith.
The Bible states repeatedly and unequivocally that a person is saved by faith and only by faith. That is by Grace through faith. The reason, like the gospel itself, is simple: only Jesus, who is both God and Man, could pay the infinite penalty required by God’s justice. Faith in Him and His finished work on the cross, then, is mankind’s only means of salvation. That is not only what the Bible teaches, but logic and reason demand the same conclusion. What can we do to assist in something which God says He alone can do and has done? Any such attempt to add anything to Christ’s perfect atonement is a rejection of God’s salvation. Yet Roman Catholicism majors on “finishing” the finished work of Christ. It teaches that man must merit heaven through his own “grace-assisted” good works, sufferings, obedience to Church laws, receiving the sacraments, expiating his own sins, and on and on. Furthermore, the Catholic Church claims that it alone possesses the treasury from which are dispensed the graces necessary for salvation.
Again, it troubles me deeply that our next generation of evangelicals appears unable (or unmotivated) to discern between the gospel Paul preached, which alone saves, and what he called “another gospel,” which can save no one. That false “gospel,” by the way, was an attempt to add circumcision to faith in order to be justified. Paul was so troubled by this one addition that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he condemned all who preach such a gospel. Yet the Catholic Church condemns all who reject their hundreds of additions to faith which it says are necessary for salvation!
"Faith alone" not biblical
While the Bible does state several times that a person is saved by faith, it never states that a person is saved by faith alone; in fact, the only time the words “faith” and “alone” are found together in the New Testament, it is to say that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
The whole “faith alone” thing comes from passages where faith (alone) is mentioned in connection with justification, while ignoring other passages where such things as repentence (alone), confession (alone), hearing a sermon (alone), or baptism (alone) are all mentioned in such a connection.
There are indeed two categories of “works” that are explicitly identified as not being salvific: “works of the law” and “works of our own righteousness.” I think I can make a good case that “works of obedience to the gospel” (where I categorize “faith” among other things) do not follow under either of these two headings.
I believe that this partial distortion of biblical theology comes in part from misunderstanding a biblical category system (covenant) and unconsciously adopting uncritically elements of a Hellenistic philosophical one (Platonic dualism)—quite understandable given the Hellenistic world of such great thinkers as Augustine. (Though I do recognize that Platonism affected biblical thought and that systematic theologies such as the “faith only” variety make attempts to explain references to covenant.)
Justification and Gospel
Let me add to what Chris has said by first referring to another NTW article on Justification (and some extras):
http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_Caesar_Romans.htm http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf
I would also encourage you, Bill, to see that many of us on this site have quite a different vocabulary than yours, and it seems that you are missing the points some are making because you are misunderstanding what they are actually saying. My point in the first NTW article on Gospel was to indicate to you that there is a more historically accurate way to read that word than the Evangelical (and, BTW, I consider myself an evangelical, or at least post-evangelical) reading of “justification by faith alone.” I believe justification by faith alone, but that is not what the gospel is. The gospel is the royal proclamation, the glad tidings, that a new King has begun to reign—it is the announcement of Jesus as Israel’s messiah and the world’s true lord. Likewise, justification is not a synonym for salvation; but I’ll let you read that one in the article. The point is that, while I believe I am justified by faith alone, I am not justified by my belief in justification by faith alone. the object of faith is the vindicated King/Lord. Chris’s distinction between works of Torah and a generalized morality is important. Paul wasn’t trying to answer questions about ‘are we saved by doing good things.’ That was Augustine’s issue with the Pelagians. Paul was answering the question of whether gentile converts had to fulfill ‘works of torah’ (ie, circumcision), that is, to become jewish proselytes, in order to become part of God’s special people. His answer, of course, is that God’s worldwide family, promised to abraham, can only be entered by faith in the life-giving God, the God that gave Abraham and Sarah life (Isaac) and the God that raised Jesus from the dead. He will also give all who believe in/follow/(the obedience from faith) the Messiah/Lord.
I have many Catholic friends who love God dearly, demonstrated by their faith in Jesus. Their doctrin in other areas can be quite disconcerting to me, at times, bu they are my family, God’s family, because they are following/have faith in the one true God revealed in Jesus, They may not, personally, be assured of their salvation. But come judgement day, at the latest, they will along with us see how glorious God’s grace really is!
And BTW, there are a number of indications in Paul that evangelicals have to skip around and try to explain away that indicate, at the end, we will be judged by our whole lives lived. the difference for christians is that they can be assured that faith, the sign that the spirit has so transformed them that they are now able to turn to God, is also the sign that God is at work in them now, and will complete their lives, helping them to fulfill the “good works prepared in advance for us to do.”
By grace aone
You say: I have many Catholic friends who love God dearly, demonstrated by their faith in Jesus. Their doctrin in other areas can be quite disconcerting to me, at times, bu they are my family, God’s family, because they are following/have faith in the one true God revealed in Jesus, They may not, personally, be assured of their salvation. But come judgement day, at the latest, they will along with us see how glorious God’s grace really is!
And BTW, there are a number of indications in Paul that evangelicals have to skip around and try to explain away that indicate, at the end, we will be judged by our whole lives lived.>>>
You all are still ignoring the fact that some catholics say they love Jesus but on the other hand they deny that what Jesus did was not enough to save. They still have to pay for their own sins here or in purgatory to make it. This voids there so called belief in Christ. You can’t have it both ways. Yes, Christians will be judged by their whole life as you say but not judged for salvation but for rewards.
No, we don’t seem to be speaking the same language. the Gospel is very simple. Too simple for most. Men want a hand in their salvation. They can not trust Christ to meet this need alone.
I get the same answers from my Catholic friends. Thank the Lord I have been able to show some through Scripture that is Christ and Him alone that saves. Did i accidently come across a Roman Catholic site here? It seems like it.
Here is the site to a former Roman Catholic that is now an evangelist.
http://www.moriel.org/discernment/catholicism/gendron_testimony.htm
Justification
You say” The gospel is the royal proclamation, the glad tidings, that a new King has begun to reign—it is the announcement of Jesus as Israel’s messiah and the world’s true lord. Likewise, justification is not a synonym for salvation; but I’ll let you read that one in the article. The point is that, while I believe I am justified by faith alone, I am not justified by my belief in justification by faith alone. >>>>
We are saved by Grace alone—THROUGH faith alone. Catholics do not believe this. They and the RC church teach that they have been imparted with righteousness. But we have an imputed righteousness. It is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. “Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” Luther
Missing the point
Bill, I think you are missing what I am trying to say. Let me try once more and then leave it at that. The doctrine of justification is that the people defined as God’s people, his family, his image bearers, whom he has and will save from the wrath to come, are marked out by faith in Jesus alone, not by works of Torah (of course, this is only by God’s great grace). The doctrine does not say, and certainly the scriptures do not say, that this people are marked out by belief in the doctrine of justification. One does not have to believe in the doctrine of justification to be justified, one has only to have faith in the God who raised Jesus from the dead. In the language of first century Judaism, that means to turn away from idols and worship the one true god (Acts), to become truly human by truly reflecting the creator (Romans 1-2). I encourage you to read through Acts again and get a feel for what the early preaching actually consisted of and what the early preachers thought necessary for salvation. As difficult as it may be, try to be aware of how your own religious tradition is coloring your reading of the text and read it for what it means to say. There was a thread at this site that discussed that at one time when I recently re-read Acts in an entirely different light than I had most my life. You can find it here:
http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/540
I hope you are at least giving these articles a try, in the interest of truth-seeking despite what tradition teaches (including Protestant tradition). I leave you with one more before I, too, bow out:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Auburn_Paul.htm
May my and your life reflect the grace and peace we enjoy from our Father, through Jesus and by the Holy Spirit.
Eric
Conspiracy theory
It’s a conspiracy - Bill doesn’t really exist: he’s a persona set up by Eric (and Andrew, probably) to smuggle yet more N.T.Wright links onto the site. My printer can’t cope. My spare bedroom is bulging at the seams with mounds of paper. Maybe it’s a bad dream. I’m going away for two weeks - maybe when I get back, the bedroom will be empty. Maybe OST and all its contributors will no longer be there - evaporated, as insubstantial as the dreams they are made of:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision The cloud capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, And like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made of, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep.
Somehow I don’t think so.
missing the point
Eric,
Wright has some very good teaching on the Sola’s plus one of his own.
He also said that you do not have to believe in justification to be justified. I would rather say that you do not have to UNDERSTAND justification to be justified. But here is where catholics fall short. They believe that are “infused” with righteousnes instead of imputed righteousness. Wright agree with that. And because of that Catholics depend on their righteousness to earn them salvation as I have stated many times. And if they are not perfect when they die they are sent to purgatory to work it out by their own suffering for sins. So,in truth Catholics do not believe they can be saved by trusting in Christ alone. True, this is reformation belief and still the belief of those that except Christ only as their justification.
Like Luther, Here I stand and I can do no other. luther found it very simple. Intellectuals have a hard time with the simple Gospel.
I guess I have nothing further to say on the forum. I will just continue to give the Gospel to Catholics
Blessings, to all.
Bill Scudder
Azusa@aol.com
Faith alone versus obedience to Christ's commands
works and justification
Zusia:
Greetings in the name of Christ
I agree with most of what you say. Works is a result of salvation. You say Cathollic believe they are saved by faith and baptism. Of course i reject baptism as a way of salvation. Catholics give lip service to faith in Christ alone for salvation. But it is not a lack of works that condemns them but is the rejection that Christs sacrifice was sufficient to save them completely, so they have to do indulgences, works and purgatory to pay for their sins. This is a flat out rejection of Christ and the Gospel.
The Roman Catholic understanding of justification equalled what the Protestant understood by justification and sanctification linked together. To put it another way, the Protestant view was justification by faith alone while the Roman Catholic position was justification by faith, works and sacraments
Catholic view of salvation
Hi, Bill,
Thanks for your reply. I’ll go this far: the teaching of the faith in Roman Catholicism often stresses works…but that is not the theology of the Roman Catholic church. In the RCC, works don’t save…the sacrifice of Christ saves. To me, it is a misemphasis in the teaching, not the doctrine.
Will you explain something to me, Bill? I ask this sincerely, and with no sense of challenge: If the last words of Christ to His apostles were to go out, teach all men, baptizing them…etc., then will you convey your thought on why baptism is not needed? I guess I can accept all that an evangelical can accept, except the view on baptism… mostly because I couldn’t possibly make a case for that myself. Are you maintaining that faith itself is more critical than baptism? Do you hold with baptizing?
Many thanks,
Zusia
BillI think that you would
Bill
I think that you would be very interested in a new book by Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom which Paternoster are due to publish in October entitled, “Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism” (£12.99). It is a very competent analysis of Evangelical-Catholic relations in 20th C, the issues which unite and those which divide. It calls for Evangelicals to rethink their attitudes on post Vatican II Catholicism, argues that many of the dividing issues are no longer dividing issues but also maintains that there are some ongoing ‘problems’ - that ecclesiology is the real crux not some of the old hot potatoes. The authors argue that misunderstandings of Catholic theology continue to abound within evangelicalism and that we need to be more informed about contemporary Catholicism. In sum, good evangelical-Catholic ecumenical relations are indeed appropriate in many contexts.