The Contradiction of Salvation

On Monday, Candy shared the happy news that her mother got saved. A few people found this curious, as Candy had previously mentioned that her mother was saved. Candy's reply:

I led mom through a salvation prayer over the phone about 10 or 12 years ago, but she never once attended church, or got baptized, and she never changed her drinking and partying. There was no visible change whatsoever.

Up until yesterday she had always questioned her salvation, and din't really know if she actually was saved. Yesterday is all "clicked," she got it, so she and I went up to the alter, where pastor spoke with her, then she got baptized. :-D

Now she says she KNOWS she's saved, and she's been different since.

Candy leads us through the salvation prayer process on this page:

If you are ready to be born again/saved, and you are ready to become a new creature in Christ, then pray the below prayer, or one similar... Just sit where you are, and say the below to God; He will hear you:

Dear Lord, Thank You so much for sending Your Son to pay for my sins, by dying in my place. I accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and I believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead. Thank You for Your free gift of salvation, I gladly accept it. Amen

Now, go out and tell people what you did, and remember, don't be ashamed. :-) You did the best thing in the universe, and there is a party going on in heaven in your honor. God and the angels are rejoicing:

So, Candy led her mother through this prayer, and her mother said that she was saved. Candy felt sure enough of this to tell people on her blog that her mother was saved. Apparently, the clue that she wasn't really saved was that she felt unsure. Candy writes:

If you think you're a Christian, do you KNOW for sure - 100%, no doubt about it, that you are going to heaven when you die? If you aren't positive, then chances are high that you are not a Christian.

Further down the same page is where she writes of her mother's conversion:
Well, God provided me with new friends - Christian ones. He helped me tell the Gospel message to my mom, and she got saved and read through the Bible right away.

Candy lists as proof of her mother's salvation, that she read through the Bible right away. Let's look at this more clearly.

Candy's list of what you need to attain salvation:

1. Pray the Sinner's Prayer.
2. Produce fruits of your faith, i.e., read the Bible, change your life.
3. Have a "feeling" of assurance of salvation.

I'm not sure where any of this is in the Bible. But my real question is, did Candy's insistence that you cannot lose your salvation put her mother's soul in danger? If you operate on the theology that "once saved, always saved" then her mother's drinking or partying could not lose her salvation. Perhaps it was "backsliding."

I think the danger to having a theology which makes salvation a given, is that you might not feel that urgency to confront someone, and talk to them about their actions. We really know very little about Candy's relationship with her mother. Maybe this is something they discussed, or maybe it wasn't. But Candy felt certain enough that she wrote about it as a done deal on her blog. It is only how that the doubts are voiced.

If we remember Phil 2:12, " . . . continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling," then we are more challenged to remember that salvation isn't a single emotional moment, which can fade over time. It is an ongoing carrying of the cross. A race to be run. A fight to be fought. We shouldn't be content to rest on assurance, or ourselves or for our loved ones.



Stumble It!

Why do Catholics do that?

Why do Catholics try to earn their own salvation, despite the fact that salvation can only come as a free gift from Jesus Christ?

Catholics fully recognize that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for their sins and thus ``opened the gates of Heaven,'' and that salvation is a free gift which no amount of human good deeds could ever earn. Catholics receive Christ's saving and sanctifying grace, and Christ Himself, into their souls when they are baptized. Yet they also know that Christ has established certain conditions for entry into eternal happiness in Heaven--for example, receiving His true Flesh and Blood (John 6:54) and keeping the commandments (Matt. 19:17). If a Christian refuses or neglects to obey Our Lord's commands in a grave matter (that is, if he commits a mortal sin), Our Lord will not remain dwelling in his soul; and if a Christian dies in that state, having driven his Lord from his soul by serious sin, he will not be saved. As St. Paul warned the Galatians with regard to certain sins: ``They who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.'' (Gal. 5:21). It must be added that Christ will always forgive and return to a sinner who approaches Him with sincerity in the Sacrament of Penance.
Catholics follow St. Paul, who did not think that his salvation was guaranteed once and for all at the moment he first received Christ into his soul; for he wrote: ``I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.'' (I Cor. 9:27). Also: ``With fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you...'' (Phil. 2:12-13). ``And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required.'' (Luke 12:48). ``He that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.'' (Matt. 10:22). Nevertheless, Catholics realize that even the fulfilling of Our Lord's requirements for salvation is impossible without the free gift of His grace.

Why do Catholics believe that good works are necessary for salvation! Does not Paul say in Romans 3:28 that faith alone justifies!

Catholics believe that faith and good works are both necessary for salvation, because such is the teaching of Jesus Christ. What Our Lord demands is ``faith that worketh by charity .'' (Gal. 5 :6). Read Matthew 25:31-46, which describes the Last Judgment as being based on works of charity. The first and greatest commandment, as given by Our Lord Himself, is to love the Lord God with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength; and the second great commandment is to love one's neighbor as oneself. (Mark 12:30-31). When the rich young man asked Our Lord what he must do to gain eternal life, Our Lord answered: ``Keep the commandments.'' (Matt. 19:17). Thus, although faith is the beginning, it is not the complete fulfillment of the will of God. Nowhere in the Bible is it written that faith alone justifies. When St. Paul wrote, ``For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law,'' he was referring to works peculiar to the old Jewish Law, and he cited circumcision as an example.
The Catholic Church does not teach that purely human good works are meritorious for salvation; such works are not meritorious for salvation, according to her teaching. Only those good works performed when a person is in the state of grace--that is, as a branch drawing its spiritual life from the Vine which is Christ (John 15:4-6)--only these good deeds work toward our salvation, and they do so only by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ. These good works, offered to God by a soul in the state of grace (i.e., free of mortal sin, with the Blessed Trinity dwelling in the soul), are thereby supernaturally meritorious because they share in the work and in the merits of Christ. Such supernatural good works will not only be rewarded by God, but are necessary for salvation.

St. Paul shows how the neglect of certain good works will send even a Christian believer to damnation: ``But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.'' (1 Tim. 5:8). Our Lord tells us that if the Master (God) returns and finds His servant sinning, rather than performing works of obedience, He ``shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers.'' (Luke 12:46).

Furthermore, Catholics know they will be rewarded in Heaven for their good works. Our Lord Himself said: ``For the Son of man . . . will render to every man according to his works.'' (Matt. 16:27). ``And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.'' (Matt. 10:42). Catholics believe, following the Apostle Paul, that ``every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor.'' (1 Cor. 3:8). ``For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name, you who have ministered, and do minister to the saints.'' (Heb. 6:10). ``I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming.'' (2 Tim. 4:7-8).

Still, Catholics know that, strictly speaking, God never owes us anything. Even after obeying all God's commandments, we must still say: ``We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do.'' (Luke 17:10). As St. Augustine (5th century) stated: ``All our good merits are wrought through grace, so that God, in crowning our merits, is crowning nothing but His gifts.''

Had St. Paul meant that faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, he would not have written: ``. . . and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.'' (1 Cor. 13:2). If faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, the Apostle James would not have written: ``Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only'? . . . For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.'' (James 2:24-26). Or: ``What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?'' (James 2:14). If faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, the Apostle Peter would not have written: ``Wherefore, brethren, labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.'' (2 Peter 1:10-11). If faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, the primitive Christian Fathers would not have advocated good works in such powerful words. Wrote St. Irenaeus, one of the most illustrious of the primitive Christian Fathers: ``For what is the use of knowing the truth in word, while defiling the body and accomplishing the works of evil? Or what real good at all can bodily holiness do. if truth be not in the soul? For these two, faith and good works, rejoice in each other's company, and agree together and fight side by side to set man in the Presence of God.

Born again, again

Candy writes of John 3:1-21:

Notice that you must be born of the water and of the Spirit. Jesus makes it clear that born of the water means physically born - the waters being the amniotic fluid in the womb. One must be physically born, before they can be born again. Born of the Spirit is being Born Again. There is no mention of baptism in the above scripture, for one isn't to get baptised before getting saved, only after, in obedience to Christ, but not for salvation. Since being born again is not baptism, it must be something else.

We discussed this when studying the 3rd chapter of St. John's gospel. Please read the full article, but here is the Cliff Notes version.

I think that if Candy takes such a literal interpretation of this verse, then she must rule out the possibility of salvation for those who are never physically born, i.e., those who are miscarried or aborted. Jesus does put being born of water as one of the two conditions for entering the kingdom of God.

It can also be a danger to put a significance on the order in which something is placed in scripture. One obvious case would be that Peter's name is always listed first in the lists of the apostles. Would Candy say that this is significant?

This verse supports that baptism and being born in Spirit through belief in Jesus is linked. This is found throughout the entire New Testament.

The first thing that Jesus does after speaking with Nicodemus is to begin baptizing in 3:22.

Why would Jesus say in John 3 that we should be born and believe, when He says everywhere else that we should be baptized and believe? Clearly, when unless you take the verse out of context of other verses, you should conclude that by "born of water" Jesus meant baptism.

You really can't get more clear than 1 Peter 3:21, which states "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

All other religions require one to DO something - rituals, works, sacraments, penance, and acts of self-righteousness. Yet, for the Christian, Jesus paid it ALL. Through Christ's spilt blood, anyone can gain entrance into heaven.

While Catholicism remains unnamed, rituals, works, sacraments, and penance are all code words used by Candy to allude to Catholicism. However, Catholicism does not teach that we are saved by any of these aspects.

CCC #161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#169: Salvation comes from God alone

#1741: Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free." In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free." The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."

#620: Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

#1427 It is by faith in the Gospel and by Baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation, that is, the forgiveness of all sins and the gift of new life.

#2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord's words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"- reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.


Accepting, believing, and fully trusting in Christ's free gift of salvation is how one becomes born again - born of the Spirit.

Accepting, believing, and trusting are all verbs, or as they call them in schools now, action words. Candy's religion requires her to DO something, too. It places the burden of salvation on your action of accepting Christ.

I ask again, what role does God's grace play in salvation for Candy?

Anathemas, Part III

For our next installation of what may become a four part series, I wanted to address what the canons of Trent actually say, and not follow the red herring of the anathemas. As it is beyond the scope of this blog to go over all of the canons, I will stick to the four which Candy found particularly offensive. She uses two each for the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and the validity of the sacraments.

Now, if Candy hadn't gotten distracted by the anathemas, I think she could have made a very good post out of this material. I don't deny that there are differences between Catholic theology, and the theology that Candy follows. Perhaps she could have explained why she believed we are saved by faith alone, and why the sacraments are not necessary instead of saying that Catholics who believe in Jesus are anathema, which just isn't true.


If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON IX

“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON XII

The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by God's grace alone, through our faith, as is manifested by our works. We do not believe that we are saved by faith alone.

The only time that the words "faith" and "alone" appear together in the Bible are in James 2:14-26, where it is stating that we are NOT saved by faith alone. (Well, apparently not actually in the KJV, which I tend to use here in deference to Candy's preferences.)

James 2:14-26What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You can read two excellent articles on the Catholic Answers website that deal with this issue.
Not By Faith Alone
Aren't We Saved By Faith Alone?

The Catholic Church DOES affirm the importance of faith:

CCC #161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#183: "Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16)."


So if the Catholic Church feels faith is so important, why did it condemn salvation by faith alone? Because salvation by faith alone discounts the work of God's grace in our salvation. Are we saved by God's grace, or do we save ourselves by OUR belief, OUR faith, OUR saying the Sinner's Prayer, etc. It is God's grace which prompts our faith, and therefore God deserves all the credit for our salvation, not our declaration of faith.

Grace is something that Candy doesn't really mention much on her blog, and I'm curious as to how she feels God's grace fits into the role of our salvation. Whereas, if you take the time to read the Canons of the Council of Trent, grace shows up time and time again.

Canon 2.
If anyone says that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may be able more easily to live justly and to merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he is able to do both, though with hardship and difficulty, let him be anathema.

Canon 29.
If anyone says that he who has fallen after baptism cannot by the grace of God rise again,[130] or that he can indeed recover again the lost justice but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and Universal Church, instructed by Christ the Lord and His Apostles, has hitherto professed, observed and taught, let him be anathema.

Canon 32.
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

Further, if you read more than four canons of Trent quoted by Candy, you will see that even at the time the Church was condemning the idea of salvation by faith alone, it took the time to also condemn salvation by works.

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Wow! The very first canon, huh? Must be important.



Okay, let's move on to sacraments.

“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON I

“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not in deed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON IV


As far as I am aware, Candy believes that there are two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, but no sacraments. There are other churches besides the Catholic Church which affirm that there are sacraments, and some also affirm that there are seven, while others feel the number is fewer. I think that sacraments, like infant versus believer baptism, is something that mature Christians should be able to agree to disagree about.

What is a sacrament? The short answer which people usually give to that question is "an outward sign of an inward grace." Sacraments are all about grace.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men. Writers on the sacraments refer to this as the necessitas convenientiae, the necessity of suitableness. It is not really a necessity, but the most appropriate manner of dealing with creatures that are at the same time spiritual and corporeal.

What does that mean? Because we are corporeal creatures, we deal with the material world. We understand things best through out senses. God dispenses graces through visible, material sacraments, just as our salvation depended on God taking flesh.

A Primer On Catholic Sacraments
The Catholic Catechism on Sacraments

Candy's Catholic "Friend"

Today Candy Writes:

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend who is Roman Catholic. He said some things that I'd like to address on this blog, in case anyone else thinks or says the same thing. That conversation was great, and I think we both walked away having enjoyed a thorough theological conversation. :-)

My Catholic friend said that he believes that if a person thinks they are "saved," then they must not sin, because if they sin, they are not "saved." I would like to show the error in this belief via Scripture:

1 John 1:

"7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

My friend also said that he believes that one has to earn salvation via good works, and that the person must work hard, every single day, to be a good person, and do good works, or they have not earned their salvation. I would like to show Scripture that shows that that doctrine is also in error:

Ephesians 2:

"8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast."

It doesn't matter what church you attend. Attending, or being the member of a certain church will not get you into heaven. Neither will doing good works. Doing good works does not erase the sin we've committed. This is like a person who murdered his best friend, and then decided that they were going to be good, from then on out.

Should they then not be punished for the crime they committed, or should it be forgotten, because now he's a "good guy?" Obviously, no matter how good the person has become, they still need to pay for the sins they committed.

Being good, and doing good works will not and cannot cleans or cover our sins. We still need to pay for what we did wrong, or justice has not been served.

You are probably not a murderer, but lying is a sin, as well as impure thoughts. You are probably guilty of those, at the least. The Bible tells us that everyone is a sinner. The Bible also tells us what has to be done to pay for those sins:

I personally do not believe that Candy has a Catholic "friend." She's not tolerant enough for that. I also think that her "friend" was either messing with her or was another uncatechized Catholic.

We have tackled Salvation on this blog before.
October 6, 2009
September 19, 2009
February 10, 2009

For a complete listing see here.

Here is what the Catechism (which Candy apparently still ignores - which is odd for someone who thinks she knows so much on the topic) says: (Please note the catechism citations also reference scripture!)

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

183 Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16).

620 Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (I Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

621 Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: "This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19).

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (I Pt 1:18).

623 By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19).

1697 - a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.92 In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end"93 and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."94 She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.95

Whore of Babylon, Part II

Continuing with the second part of Candy's post where she actually addresses doctrinal issues . . .

Moving on... We know that whatever this false religious system is, it must be a type of counterfeit of true Christianity, else, there'd be no reason for the Bible to say the following:

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. -Revelation 18:4

This verse referred to one group of people being separated from another, but it does not specify a religion. I think it brings to mind the parable of the wheat and the tares.

Matthew 13:30: Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Therefore, a real Christian knows that they can get to heaven ONLY via Jesus, and no other way. Christians believe and know this. Does the Roman Catholic religion agree with this biblical Christian doctrine, taught by Jesus?

Candy then quotes, not from the Catechism directly, but from "Are Roman Catholics Saved," which quotes from the Catechism.

"We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere 'to the end' and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ," (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1821).

I would guess that the offense here is the mention of good works. Notice that the Catechism says that they are "accomplished with the grace of Christ." As you will read in the book of James, faith without works is dead.

"Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification," (CCC, par. 2010)

This is not a full quotation. Let us read the entire paragraph:

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

When Candy prays for a person, what response does she expect? If Candy prays for someone, she is asking that God grant them graces, because she asked for them. This is what the paragraph is saying. Through our prayers, or fasting, we are asking for God to pour out his grace on those for whom we are praying.

If you are praying for the conversion of someone, you are asking that God grant them the graces needed to convert, i.e., through your prayer, "merit for others the graces needed for sanctification."

What is the point of prayer? Why would a non-Catholic pray for the conversion of someone if they didn't feel it would be effective in some way?

Now, neither of these quotations were actually intended to speak about Jesus being the only way of salvation.

CCC #161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#169: Salvation comes from God alone

#1741: Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free." In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free." The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."

#620: Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).


Jesus says that we are saved through Him only, but the Roman Catholic Church says that there are works/deeds that must be done as well.

Again, notice the lack of reference to the Catechism.

CCC #1427 It is by faith in the Gospel and by Baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation, that is, the forgiveness of all sins and the gift of new life.

#2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord's words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"- reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

However, the Catechism is a book of doctrines that we hold, not refutations, so I can't actually produce a paragraph saying that we don't believe in works salvation.


Let's see what others have to say about the Whore of Babylon

What we have here is an appeal to tradition. If each person is capable of interpreting Scripture on his own, then why do we need Bible commentaries to guide us in interpretation?

In the Ring: Candy vs. Angie

Those of you who read through comments on Candy's site may have noticed that she has been conversing with a Catholic named Angie on the reading list post.

Angie didn't leave (or Candy didn't publish) any contact info, so I can't invite her here to join us. But Angie, if you manage to find your way here, be sure to say hi in the comments. We appreciate your effort, as futile as it may be!

I'm going to publish the comments here, and intersperse comments on my own. For clarity, Angie's words are in blue, Candy's in red, and mine in black. Let's begin!

I heard a quote recently that I whole-heartedly agreed with - it went something like this, but I can't remember the exact words. "Less than a hundred hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate the misconceptions they have about the Catholic Church's beliefs." Here is a link to some information regarding Dave Hunt's book (and I pass this along in love and mean no disrespect to you). http://www.... Glad you are feeling better- tummy bugs are NO fun. Angie

Angie is very polite, and I'm curious as to which link she passed along.

Angie, thank you for being so kind. I edited out the link you gave me, because it was a cult, but I thank you kindly for showing it to me.

The link Angie provided was a cult? So, not only is the Catholic Church a cult, Catholic websites are cults, too?

I don't have "mis-conceptions" about the RC Church. I've gotten my information from priests, nuns, monks, and devout Catholics (some still practicing, others not).

Candy is a disingenuous here. When she says she got her information from priest, nuns, and monks, she means those who have left the Catholic Church, and written books with their "testimony," such as Richard Bennett. For a long time, she had a link to one such book at the top of her website.

I have also read through a lot of the writings of the Holy See and Catholic Catechism.

I suspect she has read through a lot of these writings because people such as myself keep trying to post them as comments. Certainly, she rarely quotes from the Catechism when she is "exposing errors."

St. Germanus said: "There is no one, O most holy Mary ... who can be saved or redeemed but through thee..."

Although she claims to have no misconceptions, Candy begins by assuming that St. Germanus can speak for entire Catholic Church. This is most likely a quote from one of many books refuting Catholicism, and may or may not be an true quote from a true saint.

Regardless, the title of saint means that a person has lived a life a virtue, that we are sure they are in heaven, and that their lives can serve as a model of Christianity. However, individual saints can err on doctrines. Even someone such as St. Augustine does not match up with Catholic doctrine 100%. Anytime you see a quote from a saint in isolation, it does not compare to quoting a source of Catholic doctrine such as the Catholic Catechism, or a Papal document (which also have varying degrees of authority).

A large portion of this quote is missing, so we really have no idea what St. Germanus said. However, usually comments that are similar to his are pointing to the miracle and wonder of the Incarnation. That our Saviour should have been contained in her womb, thus entering the world through Mary, who had free will and could have said 'no' to God, is truly an idea worthy of meditation.

That is not what the Bible says. The Bible is clear that we are saved by none other than Jesus Himself. Mary herself proclaimed herself a sinner, when she aknowledges Jesus as HER Saviour, as well as the Saviour of the world.

I wrote more on the topic of Mary's role in relation to Jesus here.

Romans 3:23 says that Mary is a sinner.

As Catholics, we believe that Mary was also redeemed by Jesus. For a good article explaining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which is really what Candy is referring to), visit Catholic Answers.

Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

Or what about the RC Church's Council of Trent, 7, General, which says: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law [of the Roman Catholic Church] are not necessary for salvation but... that without then.... men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification... let him be anathema."

Again, another incomplete citation. While the Council of Trent is still, to my knowledge, binding, she is still not quoting the Catechism, or the most recent Church councils.

The words "faith alone" never appear together in the New Testament, except in James, where it says NOT by faith alone. The Catholic Church believes in salvation by God's grace, and sacraments are ways that God gives us grace.

Yet John 3:15-16, Romans 10:9-11, Galatians 2:8-9 and numerous other scriptures in both Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible make it clear that there is salvation in NONE other, but Jesus Christ,

Candy is changing the subject now, because the quote from Trent did not say anything about salvation coming from someone other than Jesus.

Here are some quotations from the Catholic Catechism which Candy might find informative:

CCC #161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#169: Salvation comes from God alone

#183: "Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16)."

#1544: Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

#1741: Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free." In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free." The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."

#620: Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

and that Mary was just a chosen vessel to carry the flesh of Jesus, until he was born.

I am truly surprised to see Candy say this, because I think it heresy on several levels.

First, if Mary "was just a chosen vessel" then she would not have free will.

Second, if she only carried the flesh of Jesus, then she did not carry his Divinity. The early church found the issue of whether Mary was "Christotokos" the Christ Bearer or "Theotokos" the God Bearer very important. Nestorius said, like Candy, that Mary only bore Jesus' humanity, but that God was not contained in her womb. This Rock has a good concise history of the controversy.

If Mary only bore the flesh of Jesus, then where was the Divinity? When did Jesus become both fully human and fully Divine?

Jesus holds believers more important that his mother - thankfully she is a believer also: "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked [blessed in Mary]. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." -Luke 11:27-28 Candy

I find this a very interesting quote. Notice that Jesus did not say "blessed are they that hear the word of God, and have faith alone." He said "and keep it," which sounds like works. While Catholics do not believe we are saved by works, the importance of works is reiterated time and time again in Scripture.

A verse which Candy did not quote:

Luke 1:28: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Highly favoured? Blessed among women? I thought Candy said that believers were more important than Mary?

Luke 1:30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

Found favour with God? I thought she was just a chosen vessel, randomly plucked from the mass of humanity.

Luke 1:42: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

There's that blessed among women thing again.

Luke 1:48: For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

All generations will call Mary blessed. But Candy says she is not blessed, not at all. And in that, she is contradicting the Word of God.

Well, we've hardly even gotten started and I've written a huge amount. Part II to come!

An Answer to Sara About Faith & Works

BIBLE SAYS FAITH AND WORKS NEEDED FOR SALVATION
Sal Ciresi
During the Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s, a familiar term regarding salvation was "sola fide," Latin for "by faith alone." The reformers, at that time, accused the Catholic Church of departing from the "simple purity of the Gospel" of Jesus Christ. They stated it was faith alone, without works of any kind, that brought a believer to eternal life. They defined this faith as "the confidence of man, associated with the certainty of salvation, because the merciful Father will forgive sins because of Christ's sake."
This view of salvation is a crucial issue because it strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message eternal life. Roman Catholicism teaches that we are not saved by faith alone. The Church has taught this since 30 A.D. as part of the Divine Revelation. The truth of the Catholic Church's teaching can be demonstrated from Sacred Scripture alone.
All who claim the title "Christian" will be able to agree on the following two truths: salvation is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8) and salvation is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12). These biblical facts will be our foundation as we explain the teaching of the Catholic Church.
If we take a concordance and look up every occurrence of the word "faith," we come up with an undeniable fact the only time the phrase "faith alone" is used in the entire Bible is when it is condemned (James 2:24). The epistle of James only mentions it in the negative sense.
The Bible tells us we must have faith in order to be saved (Hebrews 11:6). Yet is faith nothing more than believing and trusting? Searching the Scriptures, we see faith also involves assent to God's truth (1 Thessalonians 2:13), obedience to Him (Romans 1:5, 16:26), and it must be working in love (Galatians 5:6). These points appeared to be missed by the reformers, yet they are just as crucial as believing and trusting. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3) should be heeded by all it's certainly an attention grabber.
Paul speaks of faith as a life-long process, never as a one-time experience (Philippians 2:12). He never assumes he has nothing to worry about. If he did, his words in (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) would be nonsensical. He reiterates the same point again in his second letter to Corinth (2 Corinthians 13:5). He takes nothing for granted, yet all would agree if anyone was "born again" it certainly was Paul. Our Lord and Savior spoke of the same thing by "remaining in Him" (John 15:1-11).
Paul tells us our faith is living and can go through many stages. It never stays permanently fixed after a single conversion experience no matter how genuine or sincere. Our faith can be shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19), departed from (1 Timothy 4:1), disowned (1 Timothy 5:8) wandered from (1 Timothy 6:10), and missed (1 Timothy 6:21). Christians do not have a "waiver" that exempts them from these verses.
Do our works mean anything? According to Jesus they do (Matthew 25:31-46). The people rewarded and punished are done so by their actions. And our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well. These verses are just as much part of the Bible as Romans 10:8-13 and John 3:3-5.
Some will object by appealing to Romans 4:3 and stating Abraham was "declared righteous" before circumcision. Thus he was only saved by "believing" faith (Genesis 15:6), not by faith "working in love" (Galatians 5:6). Isn't this what Paul means when he says none will be justified by "works of law" (Romans 3:28)? No, this is not what he means. He's condemning the Old Covenant sacrifices and rituals which couldn't justify and pointing to better things now in Christ Jesus in the New Covenant (Hebrews 7-10). A close examination of Abraham's life revealed a man of God who did something. In Genesis 12-14 he makes two geographical moves, builds an altar and calls on the Lord, divides land with Lot to end quarrels, pays tithes, and refuses goods from the King of Sodom to rely instead on God's providence. He did all these works as an old man. It was certainly a struggle. After all these actions of faith, then he's "declared righteous" (Genesis 15:6). Did these works play a role in his justification? According to the Bible, yes.
The Catholic Church has never taught we "earn" our salvation. It is an inheritance (Galatians 5:21), freely given to anyone who becomes a child of God (1 John 3:1), so long as they remain that way (John 15:1-11). You can't earn it but you can lose the free gift given from the Father (James 1:17).
The reformer's position cannot be reconciled with the Bible. That is why the Catholic Church has taught otherwise for over 1,960 years.
Where does our assistance come from to reach our heavenly destination? Philippians 4:13 says it all, "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me."


(Sal Ciresi has lectured on apologetics in the diocese of Arlington, VA and has resided in Northern Virginia since his discharge from the Marine Corps in 1991.)
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network5817 Old Leeds RoadIrondale, AL 35210
http://www.ewtn.com/

For Further Study:

Grace, Faith, and Works


Catholic Bridge.com

Faith and Works
By Jimmy Akin

Faith- Catholic Encyclopedia

Salvation is Both Faith and Works

How can I be saved? Faith or works?

www.keepingthehome.com

If you think we were saved via baptism, then you'd have to also believe that Jesus lied to the thief on the cross, but we know that Jesus is the TRUTH (John 14:6):

Here allusion can well be made to the case so often cited, that of the good thief to whom Christ said on Calvary, "This day you shall be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Since that thief had done no good works, how can we explain his salvation, if faith alone is not sufficient? To say that the good thief did no good works is to take far too narrow a view of what good works mean. We must not think only of being good to the poor or of other forms of humanitarianism. After all, the good thief publicly proclaimed the innocence of Christ and equally, with deep humility, acknowledged his own guilt. These were already good works.

In any case, that the good thief did not have time to do further good works after his conversion could not affect the principle that good works are necessary, good works which the good thief would certainly have the will to do, had he had the opportunity. Paul wrote to the Galatians, "In doing good let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing. Therefore while we have time let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith" (Gal. 6:9-10).

It rests with God how much time each of us will have. But while we have it God expects us to do good, and our salvation depends upon our doing it. If we do it, Paul tells us that we shall reap our reward. And our Lord himself tells us, as we have seen, that our not doing it can result in the loss of our souls.

But even were we to grant that an exception was made in the case of the good thief, the exception proves the rule, and we cannot argue from the special dispensation in his case to what is normally required. But did not Paul expressly tell the Galatians that we are "justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?" (Gal. 2:16). He did. But with what was he concerned?

Paul was refuting the Judaizing Christians, those early converts to the Church who claimed that, in addition to their acceptance of the teachings of Christ and the fulfillment of his law, those baptized were obliged still to observe the prescriptions of the Jewish or Mosaic Law. Denouncing that, Paul insisted that Christ had abolished the Mosaic Law, fulfilling yet transcending it and making possible by his death on the cross and the power of grace a righteousness which observance of the Mosaic Law of itself could give man no power to attain. But he did not by that intend that Christians, emancipated from observance of Jewish obligations, are to be saved merely by faith in Christ without observing the law of Christ himself in our daily conduct. Paul teaches, of course, that even for Christians good works, while necessary, cannot of themselves be the cause of salvation. They need a value derived from Christ. Divine grace is indeed a communication of the very righteousness of Christ to our souls, giving a new value to all the good works we strive to do. It is this grace which enables us to fulfill the law, not according to the letter, but in the spirit. Thus Paul writes that "the justification of the law may be fulfilled in us who walk, not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit" (Rom. 8:4).

James, well aware of the mind of Paul, wrote most strongly on this subject. "Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves" (Jas. 1:22). Again: "What shall it profit if a man if he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him? . . . You believe that there is one God. You do well. But the devils also believe and tremble. But will you know, vain man, that faith without works is dead. . . . By works a man is justified and not by faith only. Even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:14, 19, 20, 26).

Rightly, then, the Catholic Church insists and has always insisted that both faith and good works are required for righteousness in the Christian sense of the word and for salvation. Right beliefs and right conduct are necessary.

From Catholic Answers

also from Catholic Answers

Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).

The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).

Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.

Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!

From Tradition To Truth

Amy/motherofmany has posted Richard Peter Bennett's conversion story at her blog.

Richard Peter Bennett is the editor of Far From Rome, Near To God, one of the books that I reviewed earlier. I thought I would take the time to address some of the points in his story that caught my eye.

We were a typical Irish Roman Catholic family. My father sometimes knelt down to pray at his bedside in a solemn manner. Most evenings we would kneel in the living room to say the Rosary together. No one ever missed Mass on Sundays unless he was seriously ill.

What a wonderful family to grow up in! Here, at the beginning of the story, we learn that his family modeled a life of prayer, and that making time to spend with God on Sunday was the highest priority for them.

By the time I was about five or six years of age, Jesus Christ was a very real person to me, but so also were Mary and the saints.

This seems like "having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" to me. It is going along with my theory that some feel we are saved by faith in Jesus AND in refuting Catholicism.

Did Jesus not have a mother? Were there not Christians who have gone before us? Why shouldn't they be real to us? They WERE real, and ARE real in Heaven, right now.

I began to find some comfort in direct personal prayer. I stopped saying the Breviary (the Roman Catholic Church's official prayer for clergy) and the Rosary and began to pray using parts of the Bible itself.

Yet, the Breviary IS parts of the Bible. It is mostly composed of the Psalms. The Rosary is also composed of parts of the Bible. The Lord's Prayer is found in Scripture, and half of the Hail Mary is found in Luke.

As was discussed in the comments section, some feel it doesn't count as the Bible unless you are physically holding a complete bound Bible in your hand. Yet, the Word existed in the Beginning, before the invention of the printing press.

I did not know my way through the Bible and the little I had learned over the years had taught me more to distrust it rather than to trust it. My training in philosophy and in the theology of Thomas Aquinas left me helpless, so that coming into the Bible now to find the Lord was like going into a huge dark woods without a map.

Anyone familiar with the theology of Thomas Aquinas probably had a good laugh at this statement. Because Aquinas knew nothing about Scripture, right? You can read Aquinas' Commentary on the Gospel of John online.

In the Prologue, he writes, "Since John not only taught how Christ Jesus, the Word of God, is God, raised above all things, and how all things were made through him, but also ."

As we were just discussing John 3:1-10, I looked that up as well.

Right off the bat, Aquinas starts off with "Above, the Evangelist showed Christ’s power in relation to changes affecting nature; here he shows it in relation to our reformation by grace, which is his principal subject. Reformation by grace comes about through spiritual generation and by the conferring of benefits on those regenerated."

Yup, Aquinas knows nothing about how the Bible tells us the plan of salvation.

Mr. Bennett writes earlier that "I memorized part of the teaching of Pope Pius XII in which he said, “...the salvation of many depends on the prayers and sacrifices of the mystical body of Christ offered for this intention.” This idea of gaining salvation through suffering and prayer is also the basic message of Fatima and Lourdes, and I sought to win my own salvation as well as the salvation of others by such suffering and prayer."

He counters this later with "Yet in studying Isaiah 53, I discovered that the Bible deals with the problem of sin by means of substitution. Christ died in my place. It was wrong for me to try to expidite or try to cooperate in paying the price of my sin."

Pope Pius XII, as referenced above, refers to Colossians 1:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh and I complete what is lacking in Christ's affliction for the sake of his body, that is, the church"

I wonder how Mr. Bennett explains this verse under his new theology?

Although I asked forgiveness for my sins, I still did not realize that I was a sinner by the nature which we all inherit from Adam . . . The Catholic Church, however, had taught me that the depravity of man, which is called “original sin,” had been washed away by my infant baptism.

I guess Mr. Bennett has forgotten what he was taught about concupiscence. Concupiscence is how we long to do good, but keep being dragged down by our sinful nature. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Christ by His death redeemed mankind from sin and its bondage. In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more than immorality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting."

First, I discovered that God's Word in the Bible is absolute and without error. I had been taught that the Word is relative and that its truthfulness in many areas was to be questioned.

Well, I certainly can't vouch for Catholic education in the 1960's. It is very possible he was taught this, and sadly, it is still being taught today in many Catholic Universities.

But St. Thomas Aquinas wouldn't have let him down here. In the very first answer to the very first question, you can find:

"It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation."

I returned to Vancouver, B.C. and in a large parish Church, before about 400 people, I preached the same message. Bible in hand, I proclaimed that “the absolute and final authority in all matters of faith and morals is the Bible, God's own Word.” Three days later, the archbishop of Vancouver, B.C., James Carney, called me to his office. I was then officially silenced and forbidden to preach in his archdiocese.

It is best to remember that we do not know all of the particulars of this situation. It is true that this would not be Catholic teaching, but it would be unusual for a priest to receive such a severe punishment for one sermon. I have heard priests question official doctrine in homilies on more than one occasion, and none of them has been silenced, to my knowledge. Silencing is generally reserved for occasions after the priest has been addressed on an issue numerous times, and still persists in teaching error. I believe the term "obstinate refusal" is usually used.

One day, a woman challenged me (the only Christian ever to challenge me in all my 22 years as a priest), “You Roman Catholics have a form of godliness, but you deny its power.” Those words bothered me for some time because the lights, banners, folk music, guitars, and drums were dear to me.

I don't have any fisking to do here. I just highlighted this because I know many of my fellow Catholics will have a chuckle at Mr. Bennett's idea of high Mass. We're always complaining about how we can't get rid of those felt banners and folk Masses, from a certain generation of priests. For many of us, guitars and drums are not a form of godliness!

In the New Testament there is no hint of a hierarchy

Really? No bishops/overseers? No elders? In Acts 15, when they have a council in Jerusalem, they put it to a democratic vote, or did they put the question to "apostles and priests"?

But by God's grace I saw that it was not through the Roman Church nor by any kind of works that one is saved

As we say over and over, the Catholic Church does not preach that we are saved by works. We actually condemned it as a heresy at the Council of Carthage in 418.

Our basic fault as Catholics is that we believe that somehow we can of ourselves respond to the help God gives us to be right in His sight. This presupposition that many of us have carried for years is aptly defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) #2021, “Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons....”

Read that very carefully. I want to know how that is different from "saved by God's grace, through MY FAITH in Jesus Christ." Hasn't he been saying that he was saved when he personally accepted Jesus Christ as his savior?

What he is trying to do here, is paint us with the semi-Pelagian brush. Semi-Pelagianism basically says that God gives us a little help, and then we save ourselves. But the Catholic Church as condemned that, too. Council of Orange in 529.

The most difficult repentance for us dyed-in-the-wool Catholics is changing our mind from thoughts of “meriting,” “earning,” “being good enough,” simply to accepting with empty hands the gift of righteousness in Christ Jesus.

I think he should speak for himself there. I have, on occasion, heard Catholics use "good" in the sense of "I try to live a good life, go to church, read my Bible, etc." I have never heard a Catholic use "merit" or "earning" in any sort of sentence in the sense that he means here. Unless you count back in high school, when several students who happened to be Catholic discussed "earning a National Merit Scholarship."

As I said in my previous review, I think that this testimony is heavily influenced by Mr. Bennett's years as a "non-Catholic." I found his testimony better than most at not mis-stating Catholic doctrine, but I have seen him do that in some of his other publications. I think this entire genre would be more truthful if they used phrasing such as "I see now, that I was trying to earn my salvation" instead of "I was taught that I had to earn my salvation."

Surely it is possible to disagree with Catholic doctrine without lying about what Catholic doctrine really states. That's something that Candy should take to heart.

Anathemas

Candy begins by giving a definition for anathema.

Definition of anathema: "A ban or curse pronounced with religious solemnity by ecclesiastical authority, and accompanied by excommunication. Hence: Denunciation of anything as accursed." - Source - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Normally giving a dictionary definition helps to clarify terms. However, this can be confusing with ecclesiastical terms. For example, some dictionaries define "celibacy" as refraining from sexual activity, while in the Catholic Church, someone who is celibate is someone who has taken a vow to remain unmarried. We have discussed before, how the meaning of "mediator" has changed, as well as touched on the difference between a discipline that can change, and a doctrine, which cannot. But we'll get to that in a minute.

Candy's big source of information for this article is Peter and Paul Catholic Ministries. Are they a Catholic source of information? Nope. They're passing along the same old misinformation. We've covered this before. She even quotes the canons from the Council of Trent from their website, and they are readily available from neutral sources.

An anathema is a form of what we would call today, excommunication. This is based on Scripture, specifically what St. Paul wrote in Galatians 1:8–9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22.

Peter and Paul says "An anathema on an infallible statement can never be changed, and is always binding; otherwise the statement is not infallible."

This is not true. An anathema falls under the heading of church discipline. Like the robes the priest wears, or whether or not he can marry, discipline involves things that the Church can change.

Peter and Paul continues, "As a matter of fact Vatican II referred to the Council of Trent dozens of times and quoted Trent's proclamations as authority."

This continues to confuse the two categories of doctrine and discipline. The doctrine of the Council of Trent still stands. But that does not mean that the anathemas are still in effect.

I would point you to This Rock, which has a very informative article on anathema, and explains why a Catholic with faith in Jesus would not be anathema for their view.

The anathemas of Trent and other councils were like most penalties of civil law, which only take effect through the judicial process. If the civil law prescribes imprisonment for a particular offense, those who commit it do not suddenly appear in jail. Likewise, when ecclesiastical law prescribed an anathema for a particular offense, those who committed it had to wait until the judicial process was complete before the anathema took effect.

6. Anathemas applied to all Protestants. The absurdity of this charge is obvious from the fact that anathemas did not take effect automatically. The limited number of hours in the day by itself would guarantee that only a handful of Protestants ever could have been anathematized. In practice the penalty tended to be applied only to notorious Catholic offenders who made a pretense of staying within the Catholic community.

7. Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren’t in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.

8. The Church cannot retract its anathemas. Anti-Catholics love to repeat this falsehood for rhetorical flourish. But again, it isn’t true. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one.

So rest assured, those of you who are Catholics who believe that we are saved by God's grace, through Jesus Christ. You are not anathema. You are just following Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Catechism states:

CCC #161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#169: Salvation comes from God alone

#183: "Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16)."

#1544: Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

#1741: Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free." In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free." The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."

#620: Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

Candy has used this argument several times lately, in her post to Angie and in comments. She seems to feel she really has us cornered. But really, she is not an expert on canon law, and by relying on anti-Catholic groups, she is just spreading false information. The Catechism is currently the standard for Catholic teaching, and by opening it, it is easy to find that our faith affirms the same belief as she holds.

Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

I have a non-sleeping teething baby here, so most of this will be pasted from previous posts, but we'll see what I can get done in five minutes . . .

A new post by Candy today with some new material, but mostly several points she has written about previously all in one very long article.

We are called to follow Jesus. Jesus was baptized, and He tells us that we should be baptized as well. If a saved person doesn't get a chance to get baptized before death, that is no problem, because we are saved through faith in Christ, not through water baptism:

Catholics call this "baptism by desire."

CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." -Luke 23:39-43

Two thieves were hung on crosses by Jesus. One did not believe on him, but the other chose to have a saving faith in Christ before his death. This thief was not able to jump off of the cross and get baptized before his death, yet Jesus affirms that he is saved, when he says that he is going to paradise.

No, baptism isn't required for salvation, but in normal circumstances, it should follow it:

Jesus has the power to tell someone that he will enter paradise, but that does not mean that it is not necessary. Baptism is the normal means ordained by Jesus.

From John 3 Birth versus Baptism:

The first thing that Jesus does after speaking with Nicodemus is to begin baptizing in 3:22.

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women

Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts: 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The eunuch in Acts 8 needs to be baptized after believing in Jesus. Paul, who was made an apostle by Jesus Himself, was baptized immediately in Acts 9:18.

In Matt 28:19 Jesus commands "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" linking teaching and baptism.

Also, Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter was following Jesus' command in Mark 16: 16 where He says "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Why would Jesus say in John 3 that we should be born and believe, when He says everywhere else that we should be baptized and believe? Clearly, when unless you take the verse out of context of other verses, you should conclude that by "born of water" Jesus meant baptism.

You really can't get more clear than 1 Peter 3:21, which states "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

For a more in depth study of baptism in Scripture, I suggest (as always!) reading through the Scripture Catholic site.

We can also look to see how the early Christians interpreted these verses. Although many fundamentalists feel that the early Church fell into error, most people feel that this didn't occur until after the Council of Nicea in 325. All of the early Church Fathers interpret John 3:5 as referring to water baptism. You can read a sample of their words here.

In Candy's article on the Trinity, she pointed to Cyprian of Carthage as support for her point. On the point of baptism he wrote "[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

Catholic Catechism paragraph 1257:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" -1 Peter 3:20-21

Noah and his family saved by water? This is only possible if they were in the ark first - else they would have died. Just as baptism only saves us, if we get on the ark first. That ark is our conduit to salvation. Without the protection of the ark, the water will not save us.

We are saved through faith, and we get baptized to show that faith, and that we are being obedient to Christ. If Noah and his family got into the ark, but it never rained, and there was no flood, then did the ark save them? No, it was just an empty shell. Just as faith without works (obedience to God) is dead.

Your baptism doesn't count, unless it occurs after you've gotten onto the ark - after you've gotten saved. Then, you are saved through faith which is a living faith, and that is what drove you to get baptized. Faith without works is dead, but works without faith is as well.

This is a bit more developed than her previous comments on that verse.

Catholics interpret the ark as prefiguring the Church. I'd like to write more on this, but again, I can't at the moment.

Jesus is God, and God wrote the Bible. We are to do what the Bible instructs us to. The Bible instructs us to get baptized after salvation. This, of course means that infant baptism doesn't count as a biblical baptism - it's just getting a baby wet.

We wrote about infant baptism here and here.

Furthermore, baptism is full immersion, not a sprinkling on the head. Read of all of the baptisms in the Bible, and they involved immersion. Look at the Greek word for baptism, and it literally means "to immerse."

Baptism is full immersion, and only "counts" if it is after salvation - else it's just a person getting wet.

What I really want to know is if baptism is just a symbol and doesn't mean anything, then why does it matter if it is full immersion or not? Odd that the churches which believe baptism is a sacrament accept almost any baptism as valid, while those who believe that baptism doesn't mean anything are the ones who often require re-baptism.

You see, there are thousands upon thousands of people walking around, claiming to be Christians, but their life doesn't reflect their Christianity at all. They have a dead faith.

We are called to walk in the spirit, as per such Scriptures as Galatians 5, Romans 8, etc.

When you walk in the spirit, you automatically show your faith by your works.

If the works are produced automatically, then what about free will? What role does grace play in all of this? Candy rarely writes about grace.

A previous post on Candy's "automatic fruit producing" theology.