Most of the time when a Protestant criticizes a Catholic practice, the criticism is not only based on a caricature, but more noteworthy is the fact the criticism contains an unparalleled level of irony. When it comes to the subject of Intercessory Prayer, both of these elements are present.
When I've talked to Protestants on the matter, the fundamental problem they have with Intercessory Prayer is that they envision it as living people on earth talking to unconscious people, without realizing the Protestant themself has unconsciously made the assumption that the saints in heaven must unconscious. Luther was actually more consistent here than other Protestants, since there is good reason to believe he held to something called "soul sleep," in which the soul does not go to Heaven after death but instead "sleeps" in an unconscious state at the graveyard awaiting the Resurrection. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to say a soul that is "sleeping" and not in Heaven also cannot hear prayer, and it also makes sense at that point to deny the notion of Purgatory. But once the heretical notion of "soul sleep" is addressed, then the caricature is also addressed.
Now onto the irony behind the Protestant criticism of Intercessory Prayer. It turns out that with all the brouhaha over whether a saint in Heaven can intercede for a Christian on earth, the Protestant has failed to realize that Protestantism rejects the most important intercession of all, the Intercession of Jesus before the Father. This will be the focus of my post as I go onto explain.
The Protestant doctrine of Faith Alone holds that justification is a one time event involving the imputation of Christ's righteousness in which God sees Christ's righteousness instead of our unrighteousness. At that moment God declares that all the past and future sins of the believer are forgiven, with no requirements left preventing the believer from entering heaven. If only this were true.
The fact is, Scripture never speaks of future sins being forgiven, only past sins, which is why someone has to repent each time they sin (e.g. David, Peter). Indeed, one of the most devastating passages in all of Scripture for Protestants (especially Calvinists) is Mark 11:25,
Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
This verse shows that the Christian must regularly ask for forgiveness of whatever sins they've committed recently and that if they don't forgive others then the Father wont forgive them. This verse alone brings down Faith Alone theology and leaves Calvinists scrambling for the some of most embarrassing excuses I've ever seen. For example, Calvinist scholars have said these kinds of passages are not talking about actual forgiveness taking place, but rather about how a Christian can "feel good" knowing their sins are already taken care of.
But to turn up the heat even more, consider the following passages talking about Jesus' intercessory role in the forgiveness and salvation process:
Hebrews 7: 23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Romans 8: 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died - more than that, who was raised - who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
1 John 2: 1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
These passages are all speaking of Jesus' intercession in the present tense. The Greek verbs are in the present tense, meaning that the action is not a one time event of the past, but rather is taking place right now. But how can these passages speak of Jesus interceding for us in the present tense if our sins are already forgiven at the moment of conversion, as Faith Alone teaches? That's impossible, and thus by affirming Faith Alone the Protestant has unintentionally denied Jesus' role as Intercessor.
In desperation a Protestant might respond by saying these texts are not speaking of forgiveness of sins or justification or something like that, but as I said this is sheer desperation. Not only is such a response completely ad hoc, even worse is the fact these passages are clearly given within the contexts of the High Priesthood, justification, forgiveness, etc.
I cannot think of much more to say other than that this is one of the most devastating arguments a Catholic can use against a Calvinist, and it's abundantly clear which side is truly following Scripture.
251 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 251 of 251cwdlaw,
It is true we can " interpret scripture better than people who were only one or two people removed from Apostles" because we have more resources and training than those in that generation. Being close in time to the apostles does not make one a better interpreter. Some of the fathers had screwball interpretations of the Scripture. Even your church has "wacky interpretation" on Mary for example. Same with indulgences and purgatory.
Restless,
You got your answers to your question. Now go and study the Scripture to see how it fits together.
cwdlaw,
Daniel said- "A semi-pelagian is one who believes that man by his own powers can commence his conversion, but can not fully accomplish it without the grace of the Holy Spirit."
Do you believe this?
>You got your answers to your question. Now go and study the Scripture to see how it fits together.
You know, in the amount of time you took to type your above response you could have actually given me the straight-forward answer that I've been begging you to give me.
I asked a simple yes/no question. I have yet to receive a yes/no answer (qualified or otherwise).
Allow me to hypothesize here. I would suggest that you can't answer this question directly. If you did, you'd realize how problematic your theological framework is...
I think that you really want to answer "No, you do not need God's forgiveness to enter Heaven" in order to maintain your Reformation theological framework of Sola Fide, Eternal Security etc.
But if that's the case, why aren't you coming out and saying it plainly? Well, I think it's because you also realize that to say "No, you don't need His forgiveness" a ridiculous, counter-intuitive statement.
If I had asked you out of the blue "Do you need God's forgiveness to enter Heaven?" you'd have responded "Duh! Of course! That's the whole story of the Bible". The problem is that you can't say that now because you realize it would invalidate too much of your theological framework.
Here's my final question for this thread. I'm not expecting you to actually answer it, I just submit it for your reflection next time you go to prayer:
If Reformation theology is so Biblical, so comprehensive, so cogent...why do you have such difficulty answering such a simple question concerning salvation?
Do I believe that man by his own powers can commence his conversion, but can not fully accomplish it without the grace of the Holy Spirit?
No.
I believe:
If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX)
I believe:
If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles.
I believe:
If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, let him be anathema!
I believe:
If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema.
I believe:
That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.
And if I may step on your toes here, I also believe:
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.
Where does the "desire for faith" come from? Is is inherent in a man that is dead in his trespasses and sins?
Do you believe God predestined some to destruction (Rom 9:22)?
Rom 9 isn't talking about individuals and their salvation, it's talking about the rise and fall of nations. Contrasting Jacob and Essau, and their respective inheritance as a prooftext.
"If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith...anathema"
I answered that question.
Can you please answer RP with a yes or with a no? I'm having trouble understanding it myself. I orginally thought you answered the question, but I'm afraid it has room for some ambigiguity.
Just a yes or no. You can add more, just please do so in a paragraph below it.
Already answered. You to need to study the scripture to understand. Does God give grace to believe to everyone?
>Already answered
"Already answered" = 16 characters
"Yes" = 3 characters
"No" = 2 characters
You literally typed 13 or 14 more characters than necessary there...
Seriously, how can this not bother you that you can't answer a basic question concerning soteriology?
Restless,
Now you know how I often feel at times when talking to Calvinists, or even Protestants in general.
It was simple questions like these that really woke me up to the fact that Reformed theology is quite weak and collapses like a house of cards if you know what to ask. And it woke me up to the fact as to just how much Scripture these guys cannot take at 'face value' and must spin and twist to get out of any difficulties.
The amount of dogmas that they project onto the Bible and assume are true is just staggering.
Nick,
This is exactly what I have encountered with every Roman Catholic who attempts to defend or articulate their doctrines not to mention the various private interpretations of Scripture and church teachings that each offers. All claim to have the right interpretation but cannot prove its right. Go figure..
I know you feel like you've answered that question, and at one time I felt like you did too, but I'm less certain now of what you actually meant. Please answer with a yes or a no or object that the question is unfair for the following. Please feel free to add in a seperate paragraph (and please for our sake ONLY in a seperate paragrap on a DIFFERENT LINE than your yes or no) an explanation for why you answered as you did under each one (again only if you feel like an explanation or a bible verse is warranted):
1. Is God's forgiveness a necessary prerequisite for entering into Heaven? Yes, No, Object?
2. Does God predestine some people to hell? Yes, No, Object?
3. Is unrepented sin the neccessary and sufficient cause of going to hell? Yes, No, Object?
4. Does God predestine some people to sin and not repent? Yes, No, Object?
5. Does God predestine some people to sin at all? Yes, No, Object?
I don't think that's horrible unfair to ask you to answer these; if you vote 'straight ticket' yes on all of them, it's only asking you type 15 characters. If you want to elaborate beyond a yes or no, like I said, feel free.
Anonymous -
Give me your definition of semi-pelagianism and tell me whether you believe that Catholics are semi-pelagian.
I asked you first and all you do is play games in your response. This is about you, not me. Remember, you're on a Catholic website, not the other way around. If I were on a Protestant website I would certainly define semi-pelagianism as the ability of man to initially seek out God without ANY grace (that's my definition - where's yours).
Anonymous -
"It is true we can " interpret scripture better than people who were only one or two people removed from Apostles" because we have more resources and training than those in that generation. Being close in time to the apostles does not make one a better interpreter."
Your statement above is scholastic insanity. You don't have better resources. In fact, the communication can get lost in translation to English. Being closer in time to the Apostles reduces the chances that the interpretation was wrong or else the wacky interpretation would be challenged.
What do you think an indulgence is by the way? A get out of jail free card?
Purgatory is wacky? That makes no sense since nothing impure can enter into heaven and if sin still remains it needs to be removed.
"This is exactly what I have encountered with every Roman Catholic who attempts to defend or articulate their doctrines not to mention the various private interpretations of Scripture and church teachings that each offers. All claim to have the right interpretation but cannot prove its right. Go figure.."
Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black. Every Protestant that I've run into claims they have truth and correct teaching but no history to support the clear teaching of scripture.
We have a Church that has authority over us and has existed throughout history. You spend way too much time around ignorant, Protestant like Catholics who have no idea how to counter the heresy of Protestantism.
We site articles that you ignore and refuse to examine with any humility and yet you cast that dispersion against us? Shameful.
Cwdlaw,
I don't understand why you keep using 'scholastic' in that way.
Is there another word you use for the schools of thought of Anselm or Aquinas?
On Purgatory, I once heard a Sourthern Baptist preacher say:
(paraphrase)"And when we get to heaven, our souls will suddenly be purified; we will experience perfect contrition for our sins, we will hurt with perfect sorrow for our sins, and then we will enter into the kingdom where there are no sorrows--no sins--no tears."
And I was like *cough* purgatory *cough*.
>And I was like *cough* purgatory *cough*.
I'd actually assert that pretty much every Christian believes in some kind of purgation after death. To use Luther's metaphor, if all we is snow-covered dung then heaven is going to get awfully stinky...
Daniel -
I use the term scholastic as one who is an academic. It isn't a compliment. Scholastics believe that they can think through everything on this earth. Just like Protestants believe if they try hard enough they can unravel the mysteries within the Christian faith. It takes a tremendous amount of intellectual pride (ex. Luther) and lack of humility to approach soteriology in such manner without any regard for history.
The Reformers were the first liberals and progressives. What they did with Catholic theology is what Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama (and George Bush) do to the Constitution which is re-write history and change definitions and ignore history so their new worldviews (which is always better than the past) can work.
Daniel,
1-yes. Forgiveness is the fruit of the death of Christ and being justified in Christ.
2-yes. Romans 9:14-24
3-no. All sin should be repented of. People go to he'll because of sin. They have no provision in Christ as their substitute.
4-yes. Those who repent and believe were predestined to because they are elect. The elect will repent and believe the gospel. Those not elect will not.
5-no. God does not predestine any to sin. People sin because their natures are fallen in Adam.
Wonderful, we have an answer! So we are agreed that...
1. Jesus says that if I do not forgive I will not obtain God's forgiveness
2. I cannot enter Heaven without God's forgiveness
...therefore...
3. If I do not forgive I will not get into Heaven.
So, in this situation, what results in me being lost? Is it something I did, or is it something that God did?
If you are right then we would have to conclude they were not elect. Those not elect are lost.
>If you are right then we would have to conclude they were not elect. Those not elect are lost
I hate to say it again, but that's not really answering my question, is it? I asked: So, in this situation, what results in me being lost? Is it something I did, or is it something that God did?. You have two choices: (a) God (b) Me
Thank you for those answers!
Does God predestine them to do or not do a certain behavior to fulfill their destiny by going to hell?
It means God did not elect you. He is giving you justice and not mercy.
Without the grace of God in the life of the unbeliever God gives them over to follow their corrupt desires which ultimately will condemn them to hell.
>It means God did not elect you. He is giving you justice and not mercy.
So you're saying it's God's fault that I didn't forgive. Why then does Jesus speak as though it is something which we choose to do?
"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses"
When I read these words it sounds to me like Jesus is exhorting his listeners to a particular behaviour. They can either forgive or not forgive. There are consequences either way, but it is ultimately their choice.
However, from what you've said it sounds like you don't think it is a choice at all. It sounds like you would understand Jesus' exhortation and offer to be nothing of the kind. If that's the case, why speak these words?
Can you explain this disconnect please?
First you tell me how the elect can be condemned for anything?
How can someone whom God has elected from the foundation of the world not be saved? This would mean they will always forgive.
The IF-THEN nature of Jesus command is even clearer in Matthew's Gospel:
"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins"
Jesus says "if" twice, as though it's a real choice. No?
I want to know how you are going to harmonize the elect being foreordained to be saved with being condemned if they don't forgive. How could the elect be "holy and blameless before Him" (Eph 1:4) if they don't forgive?
I suspect they were predestined to be saved by living out their faith by forgiving those who sin against them, experiencing contrition for their own sins, feeding the hungry, etc.
It's like faith is antivirus software that will combat the sin virus. it doesn't do any good until you run the application.
I thought I should add some definitions.
1. No one who is elect goes to hell.
2. No one who is not elect goes to heaven.
3. No one who is elect goes to heaven without being contrite for his sins, and so on. No obstinate sinners, we'll call it.
4. No one who was elect 'from the foundations of the world' winds up not elect.
Anonymous -
Is there anyone who was predetermined by God to be the elect that participated in the Mass throughout their life and died while believing in the real presence in the Eucharist?
If so, how could they be the elect with such beliefs?
I'm curious how you will answer the questions above (assuming you answer them)
cwdlaw,
Just because a person is elect does not mean they cannot be deceived in believing false doctrines. Being elect does not protect one from error.
>First you tell me how the elect can be condemned for anything? How can someone whom God has elected from the foundation of the world not be saved? This would mean they will always forgive.
A number of explanations could be given, but a common one would be that God predestines by pronouncing (rather than deciding) who will accept salvation based on His foreknowledge of whether or not His salvation will be accepted by them. Those who will choose to accept are "the elect".
If you really want to wrap your head around this I would invite you to read Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God" by Fr. William Most. It's online and it's free :-)
So, returning to my question, is Jesus giving his listeners a real choice in these passages? It sounds as though they do. If they don't really have a real choice, then why bother give the warning?
You danced around the question. Let me ask it again:
"I want to know how you are going to harmonize the elect being foreordained to be saved with being condemned if they don't forgive. How could the elect be "holy and blameless before Him" (Eph 1:4) if they don't forgive?"
Anonymous,
Without getting at which is a cause and which is an effect, I'll state that my position is that no one who is elected to salvation will also not forgive those who sin against them.
>You danced around the question
Which bit of your question don't you think I answered? I think I explained how predestination and free will could be harmonized: a declaration of God's foreknowledge rather than an arbitrary decision to save some and damn others.
I would suggest that fits much better with Scripture's assertion that God desires that all men be saved. It captures His sovereignty without making a monster.
In your reply could you also save time and answer my question: Is Jesus giving his listeners a real choice in these passages? Yes or no?
"Just because a person is elect does not mean they cannot be deceived in believing false doctrines. Being elect does not protect one from error."
You didn't answer my question (you have a nasty habit of doing that).
Is there anyone who was predetermined by God to be the elect that participated in the Mass throughout their life and died while believing in the real presence in the Eucharist?
For example, are the Roman Catholics known as Saint Augustine and Saint Aquinas part of the elect?
Funny how your interpretation is truth but everyone else is in error. Do you have some magical knowledge or logic that nobody else has on this planet to come to your conclusions?
Restless,
Your answer does not address how the elect could be condemned if they don't forgive in Mark 11:25. Please answer how this could be.
Those who refuse to forgive will not be part of the elect. If you don't think of the elect as an arbitrary selection by God, this makes perfect sense.
Now, my question?
Would you say that those who don't forgive demonstrate they are not elect?
Jesus is giving real choices.
>Would you say that those who don't forgive demonstrate they are not elect?
I think all you could really say from the outside is that you have a person who professes to be a Christian who is struggling with the sin of unforgiveness, not practising what his faith preaches.
> Jesus is giving real choices.
Great. So we have so far established that:
1. I have a real choice to forgive or not to forgive.
2. If I do not forgive others, God will not forgive me.
3. If I do not get God's forgiveness then I will not get into Heaven.
So, following this train of thought, we can say:
If I do not choose to forgive I will not get into Heaven.
In this situation, what causes me to be lost? Is it something I did or something God did?
You are lost because you were never elect. You showed by your unforgiving heart you were never His to begin with.
The problem with your statement is that you're assuming that election is determined arbitrarily by God apart from His foreknowledge (please see my above post above election.)
You didn't really answer my question though. Who is to blame? Me or God?
How could God electing is "determined arbitrarily by God apart from His foreknowledge"? How does that work?
You are to blame for being unforgiving. God allows you to follow your sin to the end.
>How could God electing is "determined arbitrarily by God apart from His foreknowledge"? How does that work?
Well, one of the solutions between predestination and free will which I mentioned above is based upon the idea that God bases his election on his foreknowledge of our response to His grace.
Under your system, as far as I understand, there is no such rationale.
>You are to blame for being unforgiving. God allows you to follow your sin to the end.
Okay, so if I'm to blame for my damnation, then does that mean that I'm not saved because of something I've done?
Nick:
I'm uncertain if it's proper to identify the "one-time" view as the "Protestant" view due to the existence of Arminians and such among the Protestant "tent" that affirm a "conditionality" to belief in regards to salvation. That is to say, I believe some hold that faith must be sustained, with God's assistance, by the believer. Mind you, Calvinist might preach something that sounds like this, but what I here am mentioning recognizes an actuality for apostasy, of a "regenerate" person becoming again "unregenerate".
May all be well with you,
Felix Zamora
Hello Felix,
I understand your point. It's a subject I've talked about in the past and thought about a lot. The idea that salvation can be lost is common in non-Reformed strains of Protestantism, but really the Reformed have the most consistent position.
Hi Nick
I'm not sure if this post still operative. But I had questions to ask:
First,did Mary and the Saints possessed God's attribute such as Omnipresence where they, like God, fills all space and pervades all things with His invisible and immaterial substance while being distinct from all things thus can hear our prayer?
Secondly, is this passage Psalm 94:9-10 refer to Mary and the Saints too? Because in my understanding it only applies to God for one reason and that He was our Creator. Are Mary and the Saints our Creators too, so they can hear us and etc?
If not in what way they can hear our prayers? Again, such things (omnipresence and Psalm 94:9-10 belongs only to God alone.
God bless
Post a Comment