Catholic-Protestant exchange on Eph 3:8-10
Protestant
Sir, just a short comment on your statement below on PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS.
Paul is not referring to CHOIR OF ANGELS as you said
Paul used the same words in describing Satan and his evil powers. See Chapter 6:10-12.
Catholic:
You're right about Eph 6. However, that's not the "powers and principalities" that St Paul refers to it Eph 3:10. Note, for instance, that St. Paul clearly says "powers and principalities in the heavenly realms." Scripture says nothing unclean may enter heaven, and devils are barred from heaven. The ones in Eph 6 must be the angels which joined the rebellion, the "non-serviam" group of Lucifer.
The angels-- before they were allowed into the beatific vision (seeig God face-to-face)-- were given a test. Those who passed were allowed the beatific vision. Those who failed the test joined Lucifer. Of course, we don't know precisely what the test was, but theologians speculate that the angels were given a preview of the suffering Christ, and they were ordered to pay homage to him. A number, conscious of their dignity as angels, refused to pay homage to the suffering Christ.
Eph 3:8-10
Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
Protestant:
You mean both usage are different?. One refers to choir of angels and the other refers of satan and evil forces and it is because of the absence of "HEAVENLY REALMS".
Now with wide open eyes read again. the phrase "IN THE HEAVENLY REALS" is present in BOTH texts. See 3:10 and 6:12.
Do you mean Paul is not careful enough to choose words so as not to mislead his readers?
If I have tell you, Chapter 3 talks about the awesome power of Church drawn from its union with Christ, the power to speak the Gospel even to the dominion of Satan. Once the church speaks, the dominion of satan is infiltrated and invaded. However, in doing this tasking, the church should be careful because it is not dealing with human powers but that of Satan. How to be careful? PUT ON THE FULL ARMOR OF GOD. [This is what Paul points out in 6]
Note further that heavenly realms is interpreted in other version as SPIRITUAL REALMS. Something, someone and somewhere that human eyes cannot see. That's why we need spiritual power [drawn from God] to counter it.
Please check the doctrine of your teachers in your next sessions.
Catholic:
St. Thomas Aquinas, a quack? Wow. But your interpretation here is not very far from the second post I sent. Please read it first.
Protestant:
Sir, simple lang naman ang issue dito. Do you agree with me that Paul is referring the same subjects in 3:10 and 6:12. You don't have to drag thomas here. Kawawa na yong tao patay na nga idadamay pa natin.
Protestant:
2. The correct interpretation of PRINCIPALITIES, AUTHORITIES AND POWERS IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS. - You say CHOIR OF ANGELS quoting Thomas and I say SATAN AND HIS EVIL POWERS referring to usage of the same words in 6:1-12.
CAN WE CLEAR THIS UP FIRST BEFORE YOU GO FURTHER TO THE NEXT EPISODE
Protestant:
On the message you texted. I really do not claim to be THE ONLY CORRECT INTERPRETATION. What I am saying is my own personal understanding of the text. If St. Thomas is correct then I am wrong. If am correct then Thomas is wrong. As simple as that. I even believe that there might be some 'PROTESTANT" who hold the same understanding with you and St. Thomas but I cannot use them simply because they are who's who in the Christian world. I must speak or write my own understanding. I based my opinion on the following [I said it already}
1. Paul re-use of words in 6
2. What was Paul's experience in Ephesians during his visit there [Acts 19]
Anyway, I'll try to examine more if I am correct.
Thanks.
Protestant:
Nalilito na naman ako. Ako yong nag tanong. Ako nanaman ngayon ang tinanong.
From the very start, I've been telling you that I am using an NIV, but I always refer to other versions like the Revised King James Version before I make something a doctrine.
Now, I think we have no problem with chapter 6 as referring to wickedness, darkness, evil of this world.
You now prove that what Paul is referring in 3 is different from that of 6. As I have said, Paul should not have been to careful to use words.
Let me explain to you why I believe that both 3 and 6 are one AND the same.
Read the account of Paul's ministry in Ephesus [Acts19]. You will notice that this place is a STRONGHOLD OF SATAN AND HIS SPIRITUAL FORCES. Consider the following account:
v13 - There were jews who practice spiritism and tried to invoke the name of the Lord.
v13 - Demon-possesed people are many in the place
v14 - Notice what the seven sons of sceva were doing
v15 - Evil spirit is very present in their midst that they can even hear the words
v16- There was violent manifestation of the evil spirit
v18 - Many are practicing divination and spiritism but hide it. Now they confess
v19 - A number practice sorcery
v20- They earn a living [huge money] out of this evil practice
Continue reading from 23 to 34 and you will notice that this place is really a satanic dominion and people are demon-possessed and influenced.
Now, when Paul left and wrote the EPHESIANS letter later, he referred to his experience during his visit as PROOF THAT WHEN THE CHURCH [headed by him] PREACHED THE WORD in EPHESUS, all this POWER, PRINCIPALITIES AND AUTHORITIES IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS trembles. In fact such a dominion was shaken, infiltrated and invaded because many came to believe in the name of the Lord. THIS IS WHAT HE MEANT WHEN HE WROTE CHAPTER 3
SO, IS 3 AND 6 THE SAME. YES NA YES!!!
Catholic:
You're reading something into Eph 3 that is NOT there. Note that all you offer as proof is the existence then in Ephesus of a robust superstition among its people, chiefly the worship of (Diana, was it? I'm in an Internet cafe outside the Tagoloan NHS, I left my things inside the school, and I cannot verify). Even if you state that this superstition is to such an extent that Demetrius and the other silversmiths were able to whip up such hatred for Paul that he had to leave Ephesus in a hurry, still this falls short of a convincing argument.
Protestant:
Well, as expected, you will always not be convinced ever since. I know this already from the beginning. But I don't have to turn black and blue to make you believe me. That's why if you will allow me to teach you how to read epistles, always read it with ACTS as the background. Because there in these letters are solutions, encouragement and additional Pauline teachings on prevailing problems of places where he has been during his missionary journeys, or problems brought to his attention by other believers who have gone to such places.
Sometimes people cannot see this truth because they are blinded by the veil of tradition of their religion.
Protestant: Sir, simple lang naman ang issue dito. Do you agree with me that Paul is referring the same subjects in 3:10 and 6:12. You don't have to drag thomas here. Kawawa na yong tao patay na nga idadamay pa natin.
What's your Bible? I've been checking the translations of half a dozen Bibles including the NIV, and every one mentions "wickedness" or "darkness" or "of this world" which clearly distinguishes it from the "powers" and "principalities" of Eph 3
So let me throw back the question at you: are the "powers"and "principalities" in Eph 3 and Eph 6 the same?
Protestant:
I thought you have your bible always with you. Or you can access www.bible.com. For now, I have 2 concerns:
1. The Offices mentioned by Paul in 4:8-13 [why no mention of pope, priests and nuns] and if this tells us that the church is HIERARCHICAL, who's on top, then next in line down to the last.
2. The correct interpretation of PRINCIPALITIES, AUTHORITIES AND POWERS IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS. - You say CHOIR OF ANGELS quoting Thomas and I say SATAN AND HIS EVIL POWERS referring to usage of the same words in 6:1-12.
CAN WE CLEAR THIS UP FIRST BEFORE YOU GO FURTHER TO THE NEXT EPISODE. Thanks.
Catholic:
I dont' have a Bible always with me. For one, I use the Navarre Bible, and it's a 12-volume Bible so obviously I couldn't be lugging it around.
That I'm able to respond to you quickly is because I happen to have brought with me the Eph-Phil-Col-Philemon volume.
The Navarre Bible is really the RSV Bible with commentaries by the Theology Department of the University of Navarre in Spain. The Gospels are one volume each, so is Acts, another volume is Romans-Galatians -- 12 in all.
But I use other sources as well. Catholic Answers is one. The 3-part exposition is Tim Staples'. Notice that Timn Staples' Eph 3:8-10 says the same thing as the Navarre Bible. Why? Simple: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Catholic:
No, St. Paul is not referring to the same beings as my earlier post clearly shows:
Eph 3:10-12
This text shows that the apostolic ministry of preaching has a universal, cosmic impact. Thanks to the Church's preaching of "the mystery," it's made known not only to mankind but also to the principalities and powers of the heavens. This preaching reveals the hidden, eternal plans of salvation whereby Jews and Gentiles, by being converted to Christ come to have an equal place in the Church, and this, in turn, reveals the "mystery" of salvation even to the angels(cf 1 Pet 1:12), who came to realize the harmony that lies in God's various interventions in the course of history, from the Creation to the Redemption, including the history of the people of Israel.
The "powers" and "principalities" refer to the angelic powers which, according to Jewish belief, were the promulgators and guardians of the Law and whose mission included the government of men. But these "powers" did not know what God's plans were until they were carried out by Christ and his Church.
In this passage, St. Paul re-asserts very clearly Christ's supremacy over all these powers, and the Church's role in bringing all creation to recognize that Christ is Lord of all
St. Jerome, St. Thomas interpret the "principalities and powers" as being good angels, like the "thrones" and"dominions (cf Col 1:16)and virtutes ("powers": cf Eph 1:21). If we add to these titles appearing in St. Paul's letters those to be found in other books of Scripure-- cherubim, seraphim, archangels, and angels -- we get the nine angelic hierachies known to tradition
Eph 6:10-12
After these counsels to parents and children, servants and masters, the Apostle says something very important: all need to be prepared to struggle against "the principalities" of this world (v.12). He is referring to those angels who rebelled against God and whom Christ has already overcome (1 Cor 15:24; Col 1:13-14; 2:15). but against whom we still have to contend.This is a struggle which must be pursued to the end
Catholic:
Okay. Let’s put this matter to rest by discussing it thoroughly. It started with my claim about Eph 3:8-10:
Eph 3:8-10
Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
Here’s what I said about Eph 3:8-10:
St. Thomas Aquinas speculates as to the truth behind this text. In his commentary on Ephesians, St Thomas says “he means through which the manifold wisdom of God is made known to the angels is designated by his saying ‘through the Church’.”
St Thomas explains that here when Scripture talks about it being the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in god before we were ever created, it was the plan of God that through the Church, his manifold wisdom maybe made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places.
What are principalities and powers? They are choirs of angels. Angels are far superior to man through the beatific vision as the saints in heaven are. However, he explains that it is because of the fact that the Church is the instrument of God in that her teaching has God as her first principal, hence, the Church can truly be said to teach angels. The angels can learn because how the grace of God works through man, the angels learn.
The point is, if the Church teaches angels, how much more do we humans need to heed to the authority of the Church? In this passage, St Paul teaches about the glory of the Church and the authority of the Church
To this you countered:
Protestant:
The correct interpretation of PRINCIPALITIES, AUTHORITIES AND POWERS IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS. - You say CHOIR OF ANGELS quoting Thomas and I say SATAN AND HIS EVIL POWERS referring to usage of the same words in 6:1-12.
You mean both usage are different?. One refers to choir of angels and the other refers of satan and evil forces and it is because of the absence of "HEAVENLY REALMS".
Now with wide open eyes read again. the phrase "IN THE HEAVENLY REALS" is present in BOTH text
Do you mean Paul is not careful enough to choose words so as not to mislead his readers?
Let me explain to you why I believe that both 3 and 6 are one AND the same.
Read the account of Paul's ministry in Ephesus [Acts19]. You will notice that this place is a STRONGHOLD OF SATAN AND HIS SPIRITUAL FORCES. Consider the following account:
v13 - There were jews who practice spiritism and tried to invoke the name of the Lord.
v13 - Demon-possesed people are many in the place
v14 - Notice what the seven sons of sceva were doing
v15 - Evil spirit is very present in their midst that they can even hear the words
v16- There was violent manifestation of the evil spirit
v18 - Many are practicing divination and spiritism but hide it. Now they confess
v19 - A number practice sorcery
v20- They earn a living [huge money] out of this evil practice
Continue reading from 23 to 34 and you will notice that this place is really a satanic dominion and people are demond possessed and influenced.
Now, when Paul left and wrote the EPHESIANS letter later, he referred to his experience during his visit as PROOF THAT WHEN THE CHURCH [headed by him] PREACHED THE WORD in EPHESUS, all this POWER, PRINCIPALITIES AND AUTHORITIES IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS treambles. In fact such a dominion was shaken, infiltrated and invaded because many came to believe in the name of the Lord. THIS IS WHAT HE MEANT WHEN HE WROTE CHAPTER 3
SO, IS 3 AND 6 THE SAME. YES NA YES!!!
If I have tell you, Chapter 3 talks about the awesome power of Church drawn from its union with Christ, the power to speak the Gospel even to the dominion of Satan. Once the church speaks, the dominion of satan is infiltrated and invaded. However, in doing this tasking, the church should be careful because it is not dealing with human powers but that of Satan. How to be careful? PUT ON THE FULL ARMOR OF GOD. [This is what Paul points out in 6]
Catholic:
This is my reply.
1 Peter 1:10-12:
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.
Here, St. Paul describes the eagerness, the desire of the Old Testament prophets who prophesied about the coming Christ: whom it will be, when would he come, etc. Paul is telling the Ephesians how lucky they are to see this very awaited event unfolding right before their eyes in the good news preached to them through the Holy Spirit, which EVEN ANGELS LONG TO LOOK
Now the Greek word for “look” connotes bending over carefully in order to get a better look. Through this metaphor then, St. Paul is telling us about angels in heaven contemplating with joy the mystery of salvation. St. Thomas in his commentaries on Ephesians describe the angels—because they have the beatific vision-- as knowing way more than any human being , BUT the mystery of salvation including the details of the Messiah they did not have a foreknowledge of.
This full mystery of salvation (the great “mystery” that St. Paul often speaks of) is being unfolded, being made manifest to the angels as they observe the grace of God at work for the salvation of man, specifically, in the way God ordained for his Son to assume a human nature, suffer to free us from the slavery of sin, found his Church to guide his flock to heaven, exactly as Eph 3:8-10 describes.
Against this argument you offer the claim that the “powers” and “principalities “ in Eph 3 is the same as those in Eph 6 on the basis of the existence of the words “heavenly realms” in both. You also seem to have missed the remainder of v.12, the part which speaks of these “powers” and “principalities” as being of the “present darkness,” as being “hosts of wickedness,” tags not found in Eph 3. This is proof-texting at its very bad: splicing a passage (v.12) and turning a blind eye on what’s inconvenient.
You seem to see evil in every “powers” and “principalities” that you see. In fact, they are not all bad. Tell me the “principalities” in Col 1:16 are evil. Tell me also that the “power” in Eph 1:21 are likewise bad.
Finally, you offer the fact that there’s so much (let me use a very strong word) witchcraft around, ergo, the “powers” and “principalities” must be malevolent. In Law, that’s what would be called circumstantial evidence. You couldn’t get that case past the fiscal, sorry.
P.S. You might offer Col 2:15. To understand the passage you have to remember that around this time, there were pre-Gnostic religious Judaizing undercurrents resulting in an improper cult rendered to the angels which undermined doctrinally the role of Christ in creation and redemption, a role which is absolutely primary and exclusive.
Catholic:
And by the way, regarding my text message to you yesterday, GRANTING LANG that the "powers" and "principalities" in Eph 3:8-10 are, as you claim, malevolent, DOES IT DIMINISH IN ANY WAY the honor and distinction given to the Church, that "through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the 'principalities' and 'powers' in the heavenly places"?
Why didn't St. Paul say "that through the Bible, the manifold wisdom of God may be made manifest" if, indeed, it's the Bible who's the final authority on matters of faith, morals, and discipline? WHY?
Another thing. You know I couldn't help chuckling when I read Eph 3:10 and imagining that the "powers" and "principalities" there are evil. That'd REALLY be funny. I mean why would God want to make known to evil beings his manifold wisdom?
NOTE: MY “PROTESTANT” FRIEND DID NOT ATTEMPT TO REBUT AFTER MY 1 PETER 1:10-12 REPLY SO I ASSUMED HE HAD TO ADMIT THAT THE “POWERS” AND “PRINCIPALITIES” IN EPH 3:8-10 ARE GOOD ANGELS. I FELT THERE WAS NO NEED TO RUB IT IN SO I ALLOWED HIM TO EXIT GRACEFULLY.
Protestant:
But my question is this: As church performs this tasking, where will it [church] get its wisdom
(FACE SAVING EXIT)
Catholic:
There can be only one answer to this question: the Holy Spirit, in fulfillment of Jesus’ promise, as recorded in Matthew that he will be with his Church till the end of time, and that hell will never overcome it. And that’s why the Pope, when in discharge of his office, speaks on matters and morals, is infallible – meaning he is prevented from making any error. Now the question becomes: what does the pope use as his basis for making such pronouncements? The answer: the deposit of faith (the body of teachings Jesus Christ left to his Apostles which we now have in oral and written form which the Church jealously guards to ensure its purity and absolute fidelity to Christ’s teaching.
Humanae Vitae is not a dogma, but it shows this teaching authority of the Church at work. I’m not sure if it was Rene Alingasa or you to whom I’ve explained it, but no problem, I will explain.
It was the 1960s. the decade before, the Pill was developed, for the first time giving to women the control of their fertility. It was development which shook the world, as multitudes tried it. The Church was not spared. The Pill made inroads into Catholic homes, resulting in such a clamor for Church blessing that Pope Paul VI formed a commission to study and recommend. There were (if I’m not mistaken) 72 members, theologians, doctors, moralists, Jesuits, and they presented the Pope with their report (called the Majority Report) recommending approval of Pill use. There was, however, another report, called the Minority Report because only 3 members recommended it.
But you know what? Pope Paul VI adapted the Minority Report (which became Humanae Viate). The Pope knew what would happen next—the Church was split asunder, and there was (almost) a rebellion against the Pope. Pope Paul VI was vilified even by bishops and cardinals. But the Pope stood his ground. Today, more than 40 years later, as the world woke up to the horrors the Pill has wrought – divorce, contraception, wild sex, pornography, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage – people are saying Pope Paul VI was right.
a Protestant:
No. And I have no problem recognizing this honor and distinction given to the church.
Catholic:
You agree then that the Church is the final authority on matters of faith and morals, the one who’s tasked with settling disputes should two parties have the same idea of the same thing?
Protestant:
If the church go around the community telling about this ‘MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD” and someone asks what’s the basis that will prove that this MANIFOLD WISDOM is indeed of God?
Catholic:
There seems to be a disconnect between what the passage says and what you’re saying it says. What the passage’s saying is “through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known. . .” meaning, by observing what happens in the Church, even angels learn how God’s manifold wisdom works. The contraception issue above, for instance, could be one example. How St. Thomas or St. Augustine labor to explain difficult Bible passages could be one. How the Church handled the Aryan heresy coud be another. In other words, what the Church does and what the Church has been doing is instructing even angels on the manifold wisdom of God.
Protestant:
Because the Bible cannot literally speak.
Catholic:
PRECISELY! Scripture is inspired. In Scripture is the word of God. Scripture is infallible an dis fit for instruction. The problem is just as you said: it cannot literally speak. That’s why SOMEONE’s needed to interpret it. Not just anyone. Not even everyone. But the only one who was given by Christ the power and the authority to: the Church.
Protestant:
To the church. But outside of what the bible says, the church cannot speak of, unless we want to insist on human traditions.
Catholic:
Ask yourself the question: why did the Church not simply give way to Henry VIII when he asked for the annulment of his marriage? That would have prevented Henry from yanking England out of the Church. Yet the Church refused.
And why didn’t the Church simply accommodate Martin Luther. That would have saved the Church from being torn apart? ON the personal level, why didn’t St. Thomas More simply acceded to Henry VIII’s wish for his endorsement of the marriage, that would have save St. Thomas More his life.? Why did he choose to die instead?
Crazy, di ba? In the same way that Pope Paul was crazy when he didn’t adopt the Majority Report. But then, as hat would probably be apparent to you, they could not, because of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Nakakaiyak, but it’s true.
Protestant:
And why did Paul counseled Timothy this way [KJV]?
Catholic:
No question about that, Scripture is everything the “Protestants” say about it, EXCEPT Sola Scriptura which quite simply is un-Biblical.
Protestant:
When was the Church established?
Catholic:
This is my own belief, but from all times I guess. It is God’s nature to be happy, and to share this happiness with many. IN the sense that there is no past, present, and future for God, this desire of his, which found its fulfillment in the Creation, especially of man, provided the beginnings of his establishment of his Church.
Protestant;
When was the first use of scriptures as recorded in the Gospels and who used it for what purpose.
Catholic:
I don’t know.
And by the way, regarding my text message to you yesterday, GRANTING LANG that the "powers" and "principalities" in Eph 3:8-10 are, as you claim, malevolent,
DOES IT DIMINISH IN ANY WAY the honor and distinction given to the Church, that "through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the 'principalities' and 'powers' in the heavenly places"?
Protestant:
No. And I have no problem recognizing this honor and distinction given to the church. Nowhere in my writing can you find me arguing with you on this. But my question is this: As church performs this tasking, where will it [church] get its wisdom. Where will it base the truth that she will be speaking about. If the church go around the community telling about this ‘MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD” and someone asks what’s the basis that will prove that this MANIFOLD WISDOM is indeed of God?
Why didn't St. Paul say "that through the Bible, the manifold wisdom of God may be made manifest" if, indeed, it's the Bible who's the final authority on matters of faith, morals, and discipline? WHY?
Because the Bible cannot literally speak. While it is the authoritative word of God, it needs someone to herald it and that tasking is given to the church. But outside of what the bible says, the church cannot speak of, unless we want to insist on human traditions.
And why did Paul counseled Timothy this way [KJV]
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of , knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures [not church ordinances] , which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith **** which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
*** - and how this faith acquired by the believer? Romans
10:17 - Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the
message is heard through the word of Christ [Scriptures]
Now, Let me ask you.
1. When was the Church established?
2. When was the first use of scriptures as recorded in the Gospels and who used it for what purpose.
Another thing. You know I couldn't help chuckling when I read Eph 3:10 and imagining that the "powers" and "principalities" there are evil.
That'd REALLY be funny. I mean why would God want to make known to evil beings his manifold wisdom
1 Cor 9:27
1 Cor 9:27 “ . . . but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”
1 Cor 9:27
Catholic:
This means that while alive, we should always be vigilant in our perseverance because we can never take things for granted. On the practical plane, this means not letting up on our ascetical struggle, mortifying the flesh, guarding our eyes, etc.
We “ought to have the most secure hope in the help of God, who, so long as we are faithful to his grace, will bring the good work to perfection, just as he began it, working both the will and the performance (Phil 2:13), so that at the end of our lives we can say like Paul:” there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, will reward to me on that day (2 Tim 4:8).
Protestant:
The prize that Paul is saying here is certainly not salvation because if it is, then, salvation becomes a prize or a reward when it is not as discussed earlier based on Romans 6:23 “ For the wages of sin is death, but the free GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Paul elsewhere talks of it as a crown. I believe that while we are saved by faith alone and salvation is a GIFT, we will be rewarded with crowns because of what we have done while in the Body. This will include our services for the believers/church done in the name of the Lord and righteous things we do as believers.
A good example here is what Paul is saying in the following verses.
Philippians 4:1 -1Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.
2 Timothy 4:8 - Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
Again, if you take this “crowns” and “rewards” as salvation, then it renders salvation or eternal life as a REWARD, no longer as a GIFT.
Catholic: That’s a good point, except that Romans 2:7 clearly speaks of salvation (aka eternal life) as a reward “. . .to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he [God] will give eternal life.
Which becomes even clearer with Heb 6:10: “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints. . .”
In Mt 5:12 Jesus promises rich rewards In heaven to those who, for his sake, are scorned and persecuted. In Mt 25:34 ff, the Judge of the World decrees eternal reward for the just on the ground of their good works.
Surely, with all these passages, salvation must also be a reward, in which case, the only way that we can reconcile Romans 6:23 and Romans 2:7 (and Heb 6:10, Mt 5:12, and Mt25:34 ff) is to say that salvation is a gift AND a reward.
And indeed, that’s what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that for the justified, eternal life is BOTH a gift or grace promised by God AND a reward for his own good works and merits .
As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, AT THE SAME TIME gifts of God AND meritorious acts of man. I’m referring here to TRUE merit, i.e., of meritum de condigno.
(Credit: Ludwig Ott ,"Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.")
1 Cor 9:27
Catholic:
This means that while alive, we should always be vigilant in our perseverance because we can never take things for granted. On the practical plane, this means not letting up on our ascetical struggle, mortifying the flesh, guarding our eyes, etc.
We “ought to have the most secure hope in the help of God, who, so long as we are faithful to his grace, will bring the good work to perfection, just as he began it, working both the will and the performance (Phil 2:13), so that at the end of our lives we can say like Paul:” there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, will reward to me on that day (2 Tim 4:8).
Protestant:
The prize that Paul is saying here is certainly not salvation because if it is, then, salvation becomes a prize or a reward when it is not as discussed earlier based on Romans 6:23 “ For the wages of sin is death, but the free GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Paul elsewhere talks of it as a crown. I believe that while we are saved by faith alone and salvation is a GIFT, we will be rewarded with crowns because of what we have done while in the Body. This will include our services for the believers/church done in the name of the Lord and righteous things we do as believers.
A good example here is what Paul is saying in the following verses.
Philippians 4:1 -1Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.
2 Timothy 4:8 - Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
Again, if you take this “crowns” and “rewards” as salvation, then it renders salvation or eternal life as a REWARD, no longer as a GIFT.
Catholic: That’s a good point, except that Romans 2:7 clearly speaks of salvation (aka eternal life) as a reward “. . .to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he [God] will give eternal life.
Which becomes even clearer with Heb 6:10: “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints. . .”
In Mt 5:12 Jesus promises rich rewards In heaven to those who, for his sake, are scorned and persecuted. In Mt 25:34 ff, the Judge of the World decrees eternal reward for the just on the ground of their good works.
Surely, with all these passages, salvation must also be a reward, in which case, the only way that we can reconcile Romans 6:23 and Romans 2:7 (and Heb 6:10, Mt 5:12, and Mt25:34 ff) is to say that salvation is a gift AND a reward.
And indeed, that’s what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that for the justified, eternal life is BOTH a gift or grace promised by God AND a reward for his own good works and merits .
As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, AT THE SAME TIME gifts of God AND meritorious acts of man. I’m referring here to TRUE merit, i.e., of meritum de condigno.
(Credit: Ludwig Ott ,"Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.")
Sacred Tradition
Protestant: The Bible is very clear, it is also complete, nothing else is needed.
Catholic: Maybe, except that the Bible itself clearly states otherwise.
For instance, where in the Bible does it show the list of books that are inspired, and which, therefore, should comprise it? If nowhere, then how was its canonicity established? By Catholics? But how would Catholics have been able to? There's only one answer: Sacred Tradition, which is Christ's teaching preached- exactly how Christ commanded it to be.
What is your doctrine on God the Son in relation to God the Father? Is the Son consubstantial with the Father? Who came first: the Father or the Son? Or did neither of them come after the other, both having no beginning? Can you cite passages which support your doctrine?
What is your doctrine with regard to the Son? Does he have two natures- one human, the other divine—or only one? Does he have two persons- one human, the other divine- or only one? Where in the Bible can your answer be found?
Is the Catholic teaching about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son correct or not? Can you show me where in the Bible can your answer be found?
Who wrote Matthew? What Bible passage made you say that?
You will find that you cannot answer the above questions merely by referring to the Bible. Which is why Protestants should follow what the Bible says, and not disown Sacred Tradition. There are things in the Bible that only Sacred Tradition can illuminate.
Catholic: Maybe, except that the Bible itself clearly states otherwise.
For instance, where in the Bible does it show the list of books that are inspired, and which, therefore, should comprise it? If nowhere, then how was its canonicity established? By Catholics? But how would Catholics have been able to? There's only one answer: Sacred Tradition, which is Christ's teaching preached- exactly how Christ commanded it to be.
What is your doctrine on God the Son in relation to God the Father? Is the Son consubstantial with the Father? Who came first: the Father or the Son? Or did neither of them come after the other, both having no beginning? Can you cite passages which support your doctrine?
What is your doctrine with regard to the Son? Does he have two natures- one human, the other divine—or only one? Does he have two persons- one human, the other divine- or only one? Where in the Bible can your answer be found?
Is the Catholic teaching about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son correct or not? Can you show me where in the Bible can your answer be found?
Who wrote Matthew? What Bible passage made you say that?
You will find that you cannot answer the above questions merely by referring to the Bible. Which is why Protestants should follow what the Bible says, and not disown Sacred Tradition. There are things in the Bible that only Sacred Tradition can illuminate.
Christ's Church: Hierarchical,as the Catholics believe? Or simply refers to Christ-believing people of every denomnation worldwide?
Protestant::
Those who have placed their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church.
Catholic:
This flies right smack into the face of reality, and could have been a joke had not the author sounded so serious.
Could we assume that EVERYONE, okay, let’s not use everyone, but MAJORITY. Could we assume that majority of “Protestantism’s” 33,000 denominations “have placed their faith in Christ?
Yes, you’d probably say.
Now I ask you: didn’t Jesus say that his Church would be marked by unity—one Lord. one Faith, one Baptism (Eph 4:3-6; John 10:16)?
Could you, with a straight face, say that “Protestantism’s” wrangling tower of Babel 33,000 denominations display this unity? Some favor water baptism, others Spirit baptism only. Some accept infant baptism, others adult baptism only. Some accept divorce with remarrying, others do not. Some accept abortion others do not. Some accept same-sex marriage, some do not.
Protestant::
Petros, means a small stone (John 1:42). Jesus used a play on words here with petra (“on this rock”) which means a foundation boulder, as in Matthew 7:24, 25 when He described the rock upon which the wise man builds his house.
CatholicCredit: Karl Keating)
As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, “petros” and “petra” simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek “lithos” would have been used.
Protestant:
In addition, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church.
Catholic:
Catholics believe, perhaps much more than you do, that Christ is both the foundation and the head of the Church. But unlike you, Catholics do not suffer from an all too common “Protestant”
malady: the “either-or” dichotomy: either it’s Jesus or it’s not. Somehow, “Protestants” couldn’t believe that, as in this case, Jesus is the foundation and the head, but, while remaining as the foundation and the head, might have delegated this responsibility to Peter, which is what happened as Mt 16:19 and Isaiah 22 clearly shows.
THE POWER OF THE KEYS
Mt 16:19 “I will give to thee [SINGULAR] the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Doubting Protestants could always check the Greek original.
It’s NOT TRUE, however, what the Protestants claim that Jesus gave the other Apostles the same Power of the Keys to the other Apostles. That’s baloney:
(1) In the first place, NOWHERE in Scripture does Jesus give a similar power to the Apostles as Mt 18:18 and Jn 20:23 show the giving of the power and binding to BOTH Peter and the other Apostles. I dare Protestants to show even just one passage in the Bible that shows Jesus giving the Power of the Keys to ANY OTHER.
(2) In the second place, Mt. 16:19 is quite clear: “I will give to thee [SINGULAR] the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Doubting Protestants could always check the Greek original.
(3) And finally, the Keys, as Isaiah 22 and Rev 1:18 clearly show, is the hallmark of AUTHORITY.
You will hear Protestants pooh-pooh the “keys to the kingdom” as a symbolic statement of Peter preaching the Gospel for the first time with an international kingdom. One Protestant would even claim that Peter’s preaching to the “international” audience at Pentecost fulfills once for all the Biblical injunction for the Apostles to preach the kingdom to all the ends of the earth, that this responsibility was fulfilled when Peter, through his sermon to devout Jews from all nations at Pentecost, opened the kingdom of God to the listeners when he preached salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
Silly. I mean, would any Protestant in his right mind claim that? And what about the billions of human beings who would come after the Pentecost crowd would have died, would they be deprived of the benefits the Power of the Keys bring, just because they have not been fortunate enough to have been born when Peter was around?
The Protestants pooh-poohing the Power of the Keys as the phrase means among Catholics could very well be well-founded, EXCEPT that there’s this entire chapter in Scripture—Isaiah 22 – which Jesus definitely knew about, and which he probably used so that the meaning of the “keys of heaven and earth” may not be lost to future human beings.
Let’s go deeper into Isaiah 22 (Credit: Scott Hahn). In v.19 it says “I [referring to the King] will thrust you [referring to the previous chamberlain of the royal household] from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah [the new chamberlain of the royal household], and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder they key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”
Now, what’s going on here? Hezekiah was, at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers. Now among cabinet ministers, there is one who’s chief, sort of a Prime Minister. Hezekiah, as king, had, as his “Prime Minister” before Shebna, who proved unworthy. So Shebna was expelled, and his departure left his office vacant. Hezekiah had Eliakim fill the vacated post.
Now, Eliakim is a minister in the royal cabinet, but now he is being promoted to the “Prime Minister’s” position. Proof? He is given what other ministers were not given: they keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David.
When Jesus is giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Jesus gives Peter the Prime Minister’s office.
Take this up with ANY Protestant, and he will pooh-pooh Isaiah 22. “Does Isaiah 22 mention the name of Peter?” one asked, in a very silly manner which betrays his fear that Isaiah 22 might be showing him the truth, Imagine, this Protestant has no qualms using Eph 6:1-12 to reference Eph 3:8-10, yet he absolutely refuses to even consider the possibility that Mt 18:18 might reference Isaiah 22. And this should be a lesson to gullible Catholics who are thinking of converting: no matter how knowledgeable your Protestant teacher is, he is not in any position to teach, for the simple reason that he is NOT in possession of the truth. It’s as simple as that.
Protestant:
So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7).
The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built?
It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).
Catholic:
Similar questions as the preceding.
Protestant:
Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority.
Catholic:
I have given the verse-by-verse in an earlier post on where the Church gets her authority.
Protestant:
Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome.
Abe:
In fact, there is. Holy Scripture contains a passage which supports Peter being in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 says “The Church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark. “Babylon” is code for Rome, much as the fish symbol (icthos) was used as sort of shibboleth, a recognition signal. Why would Peter resort to code words? Acts 18:2 describes how the Roman emperor Claudius (A.D. 41- 54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome, necessitating secrecy.
And come to think of it, just GRANTING that Peter was never in Rome, does that automatically and by itself DISPROVE the papacy? Granting for the sake of argument that Peter was never to Rome, couldn’t he still have been the first Pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle there?
Protestant:
Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles.
Catholic:
If by that you mean a verse which says “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Peter you have supremacy over all the other Apostles,’” well, NO.
But then, consider:
(a) Peter’s words are the first recorded in the Upper Room before the Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
(b) Peter is the first to speak (and only one to speak as recorded), the first one to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14—36).
(c) Peter alone interpreted Psalms in the decision to let the position vacated by Judas be filled by a replacement, Matthias. Acts 1:20 “Let his bishopric someone else take,” Peter decided without calling for a vote or even a discussion.
(d) It was Peter who, without consulting anyone, made the decision to baptize the Gentile Cornelius and his household on the basis of Peter’s vision at Joppa. Isn’t it presumptuous or even reckless and irresponsible for Peter to make that strategic decision alone if he were not the boss?
(e) It was Peter who made the decision at the Council of Jerusalem that grace, not works of law, is required for salvation. The claim by Protestants that it was James, not Peter who made the decision from James’ statement “It is MY judgment” is clutching at straws.
First, it is only in Protestant bibles that the statement is rendered “It is MY judgment,” implying authority. The Catholic Vulgate renders it “Propter quod ego iudico. . .” which is rendered in the Catholic RSV Bible as “Therefore my judgment is. . .” which suggests James giving his concurrence, which just happens to coincide with Peter’s.
Let you, readers, decide, which of the two views—the Protestants’ or the Catholics’—is closer to the intention of Luke.
Readers are invited to check out for themselves Acts15:6-29:
“The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And AFTER THERE HAD BEEN MUCH DEBATE, Peter rose and said to them, Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.
“AND ALL THE ASSEMBLY KEPT SILENCE. . .”
One has to have a good idea of the trouble the division caused – on whether Gentile Christians have to be circumcised to be Christians. One has to understand the vehemence of the Jewish hardliners associated with James, himself a very much-respected apostle being Jesus’ cousin and bishop of Jerusalem, citing as they must have the covenant God made with Abraham (cf Gen 17) and the notion that the Law, once made, is for all times.
Yet when Peter spoke, debate stopped, and the decision was promulgated ON THE SPOT (Acts 15:13-29).
Even the Council of Jerusalem itself is proof that in the early Church is a hierarchy AND A PROCEDURE which everyone, even Paul and Barnabas, followed.
One has to know the “situation on the ground” then. The persecution of Christians following Stephen’s death actually hastened the spread of Christianity to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians who fled Jerusalem settled in Gentile country, and there preached not only to fellow evacuee Jews but to Gentiles as well. In the process, many Gentiles were converted, raising the grisly prospect among Jewish Christians of a horde of uncircumcised Gentile Christians far outnumbering the Jewish Christians.
So parties of Jewish Christians called “Judaizers” went around Galatia and Antioch, then places where Paul taught, telling the Gentile Christians just the opposite of what Paul taught, which, take note, is what the Council of Jerusalem also decided: grace, not works of Law, is what’s required for salvation.
Paul and Barnabas took this matter up with the Jewish Christians, but they couldn’t resolve the matter among themselves. So guess what they did? Precisely what Mt 18:15-18 says: TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH.
(f) Even the Rebuke, which Protestants with barely concealed glee use to discredit the primacy of Peter, actually works to affirm Peter’s primacy.
Readers will know more in Gal 2:11, but in Antioch, as earlier narrated, Peter started avoiding sitting at tables with Gentile Christians every time the Judaizers were around. This infuriated Paul, as Peter’s strange behavior belie his pronouncements at the Council of Jerusalem years earlier. And what would the other Christians think: that the decision has now been reversed? Indeed, isn’t Barnabas avoiding sitting at table with the Gentile Christians every time the Judaizers were around a foretaste of the damage Peter’s ambivalence could cause?
So Paul “withstood Peter to his face.”
Now Protestants could barely hide their glee: isn’t this abundantly enough to cast doubt on Peter’s alleged leadership of the Church? If Peter’s boss, how can an underling REBUKE him?
Rather than show Peter’s subordinate status, the Rebuke actually shows Peter’s headship.
Had an ordinary person done what Peter did, would it have caused Paul to react the way he did? Most likely not. But Peter? That seemingly innocent move, coming as it does from the head of the Church could signal a strategic shift. That’s why Paul is correct in calling Peter’s attention to his error.
(g) Barnabas is Paul’s bosom body. It was Barnabas who brought Paul to the Apostles, Barnabas who was Paul’s partner in his journeys, Barnabas who picked up the almost lifeless body of Paul who was lynched by the crowd who earlier lionized Paul as a god for making a lame man walk.
Yet it was the same Barnabas who, when Peter started avoiding sitting at tables with Gentile Jews every time Judaizers were around, almost by reflex avoided sitting at table with Gentile Christians too.
Now, why EVER would Barnabas do that? Note that Barnabas was a highly respected man in the early Church. Articulate and yet of the most gentle and mild character (he was called “Son of Consolation” for the way he would always sympathize with others, consoling them). If put on a stage together with Peter, people would likely readily choose Barnabas. Why then, did Barnabas by reflex chose to side with Peter, not Paul? The answer is simple: Peter was boss.
Protestant:
The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church.
Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church.
The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).
Those who have placed their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church.
Catholic:
This flies right smack into the face of reality, and could have been a joke had not the author sounded so serious.
Could we assume that EVERYONE, okay, let’s not use everyone, but MAJORITY. Could we assume that majority of “Protestantism’s” 33,000 denominations “have placed their faith in Christ?
Yes, you’d probably say.
Now I ask you: didn’t Jesus say that his Church would be marked by unity—one Lord. one Faith, one Baptism (Eph 4:3-6; John 10:16)?
Could you, with a straight face, say that “Protestantism’s” wrangling tower of Babel 33,000 denominations display this unity? Some favor water baptism, others Spirit baptism only. Some accept infant baptism, others adult baptism only. Some accept divorce with remarrying, others do not. Some accept abortion others do not. Some accept same-sex marriage, some do not.
Protestant::
Petros, means a small stone (John 1:42). Jesus used a play on words here with petra (“on this rock”) which means a foundation boulder, as in Matthew 7:24, 25 when He described the rock upon which the wise man builds his house.
CatholicCredit: Karl Keating)
As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, “petros” and “petra” simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek “lithos” would have been used.
Protestant:
In addition, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church.
Catholic:
Catholics believe, perhaps much more than you do, that Christ is both the foundation and the head of the Church. But unlike you, Catholics do not suffer from an all too common “Protestant”
malady: the “either-or” dichotomy: either it’s Jesus or it’s not. Somehow, “Protestants” couldn’t believe that, as in this case, Jesus is the foundation and the head, but, while remaining as the foundation and the head, might have delegated this responsibility to Peter, which is what happened as Mt 16:19 and Isaiah 22 clearly shows.
THE POWER OF THE KEYS
Mt 16:19 “I will give to thee [SINGULAR] the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Doubting Protestants could always check the Greek original.
It’s NOT TRUE, however, what the Protestants claim that Jesus gave the other Apostles the same Power of the Keys to the other Apostles. That’s baloney:
(1) In the first place, NOWHERE in Scripture does Jesus give a similar power to the Apostles as Mt 18:18 and Jn 20:23 show the giving of the power and binding to BOTH Peter and the other Apostles. I dare Protestants to show even just one passage in the Bible that shows Jesus giving the Power of the Keys to ANY OTHER.
(2) In the second place, Mt. 16:19 is quite clear: “I will give to thee [SINGULAR] the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Doubting Protestants could always check the Greek original.
(3) And finally, the Keys, as Isaiah 22 and Rev 1:18 clearly show, is the hallmark of AUTHORITY.
You will hear Protestants pooh-pooh the “keys to the kingdom” as a symbolic statement of Peter preaching the Gospel for the first time with an international kingdom. One Protestant would even claim that Peter’s preaching to the “international” audience at Pentecost fulfills once for all the Biblical injunction for the Apostles to preach the kingdom to all the ends of the earth, that this responsibility was fulfilled when Peter, through his sermon to devout Jews from all nations at Pentecost, opened the kingdom of God to the listeners when he preached salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
Silly. I mean, would any Protestant in his right mind claim that? And what about the billions of human beings who would come after the Pentecost crowd would have died, would they be deprived of the benefits the Power of the Keys bring, just because they have not been fortunate enough to have been born when Peter was around?
The Protestants pooh-poohing the Power of the Keys as the phrase means among Catholics could very well be well-founded, EXCEPT that there’s this entire chapter in Scripture—Isaiah 22 – which Jesus definitely knew about, and which he probably used so that the meaning of the “keys of heaven and earth” may not be lost to future human beings.
Let’s go deeper into Isaiah 22 (Credit: Scott Hahn). In v.19 it says “I [referring to the King] will thrust you [referring to the previous chamberlain of the royal household] from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah [the new chamberlain of the royal household], and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder they key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”
Now, what’s going on here? Hezekiah was, at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers. Now among cabinet ministers, there is one who’s chief, sort of a Prime Minister. Hezekiah, as king, had, as his “Prime Minister” before Shebna, who proved unworthy. So Shebna was expelled, and his departure left his office vacant. Hezekiah had Eliakim fill the vacated post.
Now, Eliakim is a minister in the royal cabinet, but now he is being promoted to the “Prime Minister’s” position. Proof? He is given what other ministers were not given: they keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David.
When Jesus is giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Jesus gives Peter the Prime Minister’s office.
Take this up with ANY Protestant, and he will pooh-pooh Isaiah 22. “Does Isaiah 22 mention the name of Peter?” one asked, in a very silly manner which betrays his fear that Isaiah 22 might be showing him the truth, Imagine, this Protestant has no qualms using Eph 6:1-12 to reference Eph 3:8-10, yet he absolutely refuses to even consider the possibility that Mt 18:18 might reference Isaiah 22. And this should be a lesson to gullible Catholics who are thinking of converting: no matter how knowledgeable your Protestant teacher is, he is not in any position to teach, for the simple reason that he is NOT in possession of the truth. It’s as simple as that.
Protestant:
So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7).
The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built?
It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).
Catholic:
Similar questions as the preceding.
Protestant:
Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority.
Catholic:
I have given the verse-by-verse in an earlier post on where the Church gets her authority.
Protestant:
Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome.
Abe:
In fact, there is. Holy Scripture contains a passage which supports Peter being in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 says “The Church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark. “Babylon” is code for Rome, much as the fish symbol (icthos) was used as sort of shibboleth, a recognition signal. Why would Peter resort to code words? Acts 18:2 describes how the Roman emperor Claudius (A.D. 41- 54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome, necessitating secrecy.
And come to think of it, just GRANTING that Peter was never in Rome, does that automatically and by itself DISPROVE the papacy? Granting for the sake of argument that Peter was never to Rome, couldn’t he still have been the first Pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle there?
Protestant:
Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles.
Catholic:
If by that you mean a verse which says “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Peter you have supremacy over all the other Apostles,’” well, NO.
But then, consider:
(a) Peter’s words are the first recorded in the Upper Room before the Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
(b) Peter is the first to speak (and only one to speak as recorded), the first one to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14—36).
(c) Peter alone interpreted Psalms in the decision to let the position vacated by Judas be filled by a replacement, Matthias. Acts 1:20 “Let his bishopric someone else take,” Peter decided without calling for a vote or even a discussion.
(d) It was Peter who, without consulting anyone, made the decision to baptize the Gentile Cornelius and his household on the basis of Peter’s vision at Joppa. Isn’t it presumptuous or even reckless and irresponsible for Peter to make that strategic decision alone if he were not the boss?
(e) It was Peter who made the decision at the Council of Jerusalem that grace, not works of law, is required for salvation. The claim by Protestants that it was James, not Peter who made the decision from James’ statement “It is MY judgment” is clutching at straws.
First, it is only in Protestant bibles that the statement is rendered “It is MY judgment,” implying authority. The Catholic Vulgate renders it “Propter quod ego iudico. . .” which is rendered in the Catholic RSV Bible as “Therefore my judgment is. . .” which suggests James giving his concurrence, which just happens to coincide with Peter’s.
Let you, readers, decide, which of the two views—the Protestants’ or the Catholics’—is closer to the intention of Luke.
Readers are invited to check out for themselves Acts15:6-29:
“The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And AFTER THERE HAD BEEN MUCH DEBATE, Peter rose and said to them, Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.
“AND ALL THE ASSEMBLY KEPT SILENCE. . .”
One has to have a good idea of the trouble the division caused – on whether Gentile Christians have to be circumcised to be Christians. One has to understand the vehemence of the Jewish hardliners associated with James, himself a very much-respected apostle being Jesus’ cousin and bishop of Jerusalem, citing as they must have the covenant God made with Abraham (cf Gen 17) and the notion that the Law, once made, is for all times.
Yet when Peter spoke, debate stopped, and the decision was promulgated ON THE SPOT (Acts 15:13-29).
Even the Council of Jerusalem itself is proof that in the early Church is a hierarchy AND A PROCEDURE which everyone, even Paul and Barnabas, followed.
One has to know the “situation on the ground” then. The persecution of Christians following Stephen’s death actually hastened the spread of Christianity to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians who fled Jerusalem settled in Gentile country, and there preached not only to fellow evacuee Jews but to Gentiles as well. In the process, many Gentiles were converted, raising the grisly prospect among Jewish Christians of a horde of uncircumcised Gentile Christians far outnumbering the Jewish Christians.
So parties of Jewish Christians called “Judaizers” went around Galatia and Antioch, then places where Paul taught, telling the Gentile Christians just the opposite of what Paul taught, which, take note, is what the Council of Jerusalem also decided: grace, not works of Law, is what’s required for salvation.
Paul and Barnabas took this matter up with the Jewish Christians, but they couldn’t resolve the matter among themselves. So guess what they did? Precisely what Mt 18:15-18 says: TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH.
(f) Even the Rebuke, which Protestants with barely concealed glee use to discredit the primacy of Peter, actually works to affirm Peter’s primacy.
Readers will know more in Gal 2:11, but in Antioch, as earlier narrated, Peter started avoiding sitting at tables with Gentile Christians every time the Judaizers were around. This infuriated Paul, as Peter’s strange behavior belie his pronouncements at the Council of Jerusalem years earlier. And what would the other Christians think: that the decision has now been reversed? Indeed, isn’t Barnabas avoiding sitting at table with the Gentile Christians every time the Judaizers were around a foretaste of the damage Peter’s ambivalence could cause?
So Paul “withstood Peter to his face.”
Now Protestants could barely hide their glee: isn’t this abundantly enough to cast doubt on Peter’s alleged leadership of the Church? If Peter’s boss, how can an underling REBUKE him?
Rather than show Peter’s subordinate status, the Rebuke actually shows Peter’s headship.
Had an ordinary person done what Peter did, would it have caused Paul to react the way he did? Most likely not. But Peter? That seemingly innocent move, coming as it does from the head of the Church could signal a strategic shift. That’s why Paul is correct in calling Peter’s attention to his error.
(g) Barnabas is Paul’s bosom body. It was Barnabas who brought Paul to the Apostles, Barnabas who was Paul’s partner in his journeys, Barnabas who picked up the almost lifeless body of Paul who was lynched by the crowd who earlier lionized Paul as a god for making a lame man walk.
Yet it was the same Barnabas who, when Peter started avoiding sitting at tables with Gentile Jews every time Judaizers were around, almost by reflex avoided sitting at table with Gentile Christians too.
Now, why EVER would Barnabas do that? Note that Barnabas was a highly respected man in the early Church. Articulate and yet of the most gentle and mild character (he was called “Son of Consolation” for the way he would always sympathize with others, consoling them). If put on a stage together with Peter, people would likely readily choose Barnabas. Why then, did Barnabas by reflex chose to side with Peter, not Paul? The answer is simple: Peter was boss.
Protestant:
The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church.
Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church.
The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).
What is the "prize" in 1 Cor 9:27? Is it "crowns"?
Catholic:
For 14 months starting September 2008, I had a series of exchanges with a Protestant.
When we started, I was not well-prepared then, especially compared to my Protestant friend who knows his way around the Bible.
After a few months, however, I acquired a degree of familiarity with some books of the Bible. Here, I would like to answer some of his unanswered questions.
You suggested I study Paul book by book. While I’m not done with all 13, I have done some readings, enabling me to comment on some of your previous questions.
Catholic:
1 Cor 9:27 : You said the “disqualified” here does not refer to losing salvation, but losing a prize like that won by athletes in athletic competitions. In other words Paul pommels his body and subdues it, not so as not to lose salvation, but so as not to lose some physical prize in some athletic competition.
How do you reconcile this with v.25 which speaks of an “imperishable” prize , which can only be one’s salvation, for what else is worth pommeling one’s body for?
1 Cor 6:9 My contention: Salvation, once gained, CAN be lost because of 1 Cor 6:9: “The unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God , neither fornicators, idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the covetous, nor drunkards.”
Protestant:
“Paul is referring here to the unsaved as evidenced by the kind of LIFE they live.” (In other words, you’re saying that, since the people mentioned are fornicators, idolaters, etc, they couldn’t be SAVED Christians, because the SAVED would not be displaying such behavior. Paul here is NOT referring to SAVED Christians.
Catholic:
How do you reconcile this with 1 Cor 5:10-11, where the same Paul who wrote 1 Cor 6:9 says that these immoral, greedy persons; idolaters; revilers; drunkards; robbers can be found among the SAVED?
1 Cor 5:1-5 You asked me if this immoral man is saved. I originally answered we would never know until the man dies and is judged. I’d like to add some more to that answer.
Paul here excommunicated the guy. Notice the four elements found in excommunication formula: (ref Navarre Bible)
- “In the name of the Lord Jesus” – showing that the Church’s judgment is on a higher than human plane
- “With the power of our Lord Jesus” – showing that the authority derives from Jesus Christ himself through the power of binding and loosing
- “When you are assembled and my spirit is present”- a reference to the collegiality of decisions taken under the hierarchical authority of the Apostle
- “You are to deliver this man to Satan” – the sentence
Is this man doomed? No, not necessarily. Excommunication is essentially medicinal in nature. Its purpose is to “cure” the offender. It’s hoped that the excommunication will bring the man back to his senses, repent, make amendments, and be accepted back to the Church
For 14 months starting September 2008, I had a series of exchanges with a Protestant.
When we started, I was not well-prepared then, especially compared to my Protestant friend who knows his way around the Bible.
After a few months, however, I acquired a degree of familiarity with some books of the Bible. Here, I would like to answer some of his unanswered questions.
You suggested I study Paul book by book. While I’m not done with all 13, I have done some readings, enabling me to comment on some of your previous questions.
Catholic:
1 Cor 9:27 : You said the “disqualified” here does not refer to losing salvation, but losing a prize like that won by athletes in athletic competitions. In other words Paul pommels his body and subdues it, not so as not to lose salvation, but so as not to lose some physical prize in some athletic competition.
How do you reconcile this with v.25 which speaks of an “imperishable” prize , which can only be one’s salvation, for what else is worth pommeling one’s body for?
1 Cor 6:9 My contention: Salvation, once gained, CAN be lost because of 1 Cor 6:9: “The unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God , neither fornicators, idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the covetous, nor drunkards.”
Protestant:
“Paul is referring here to the unsaved as evidenced by the kind of LIFE they live.” (In other words, you’re saying that, since the people mentioned are fornicators, idolaters, etc, they couldn’t be SAVED Christians, because the SAVED would not be displaying such behavior. Paul here is NOT referring to SAVED Christians.
Catholic:
How do you reconcile this with 1 Cor 5:10-11, where the same Paul who wrote 1 Cor 6:9 says that these immoral, greedy persons; idolaters; revilers; drunkards; robbers can be found among the SAVED?
1 Cor 5:1-5 You asked me if this immoral man is saved. I originally answered we would never know until the man dies and is judged. I’d like to add some more to that answer.
Paul here excommunicated the guy. Notice the four elements found in excommunication formula: (ref Navarre Bible)
- “In the name of the Lord Jesus” – showing that the Church’s judgment is on a higher than human plane
- “With the power of our Lord Jesus” – showing that the authority derives from Jesus Christ himself through the power of binding and loosing
- “When you are assembled and my spirit is present”- a reference to the collegiality of decisions taken under the hierarchical authority of the Apostle
- “You are to deliver this man to Satan” – the sentence
Is this man doomed? No, not necessarily. Excommunication is essentially medicinal in nature. Its purpose is to “cure” the offender. It’s hoped that the excommunication will bring the man back to his senses, repent, make amendments, and be accepted back to the Church
Is salvation a gift or a reward?
Protestant:
Sir, before we can go further ahead of other arguments and views, we have to settle first on the question: IS SALVATION A GIFT OR A REWARD. In my view, it cannot be both. Because the way I see it in the scriptures, there is a "synonymity" of GIFT and GRACE. And Grace is simply defined as UNMERITED FAVOR. Meaning, we are given this GIFT that we do not actually have in iota of right deserving it. This is purely GIFT because NOBODY can have it no matter how he performs. And it must be given BY SOMEBODY WHO HAS IT. And sad to say, no amount of human effort or accomplishment can ever "BUY" it.
The epistles are addressed to people WHO HAVE ACCEPTED THIS GIFT. That explains why in most of his epistles, Paul addressed the recipients as SAINTS, CHURCH, BELIEVERS, SANCTIFIED, JUSTIFIED, CHILDREN OF GOD. Are these people perfect? NO. Look at Ephesians, Galatians, etc. These books tell us the admonitions of Paul to his readers to live a life of Holiness and Obedience. This is so simply because even if these people ACCEPTED THE GIFT by putting their Faith in Jesus, nowhere in the scriptures that they are described as PERFECT, SINLESS PEOPLE.
Pardon me, but let me give a simplistic Illustration again:
This Christmas, you as a loving Father will certainly
give your children gifts. You will agree with me that you will give this gift to them not because they are perfect children, but simply because you love them. Will you take this gift back one day if they will not perform well as you expected? Certainly Not, because this is a GIFT not a REWARD.
Catholic:
Okay. Let me see if I got you right.
1 Cor 9:27 Okay. I think your reply can be summarized by the following: “Again, if you take this “crowns” and “rewards” as salvation, then it renders salvation or eternal life as a REWARD no longer as a GIFT.”
I will have my answer tomorrow- I left my Navarre Romans and Galatians bible, I couldn’t check on the passages, but offhand I have a few questions:
1. Your statement is based on two crucial assumptions:
First, a “gift” cannot be rejected.
Second, salvation follows a strict either-or situation: either it’s a gift, in which case it cannot be a reward; or it’s a reward, in which case it cannot be a gift.
insert)
Protestant:
Sorry Sir, this is not an assumption. Romans 6:23 is very clear. Salvation/Eternal Life is a GIFT not a REWARD. For clarity, REWARD IS NOT A GIFT AND GIFT IS NOT A REWARD.
Catholic:
The question is: How valid are these two assumptions?
First, on whether a gift may not be rejected:
Luke 10:16 – “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 12:48 “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day”
Mt 10:33; Lk 12:9; Tit 1:16; Acts 7:39; Rom 2:8; Acts 13:46; 1 Tim 1:19; Lk 17:25; 1 Pet 2:4
Protestant:
All the verses above talk about 2 groups of people. Those who will REJECT Jesus Christ whom the Bible refers to generally as UNBELIEVERS. To them are the warnings of God that they will be REJECTED because they REJECTED Jesus Christ as God's Gift. To them is eternal condemnation. To them is denied eternal life. To them is HOPELESSNESS.
On the other hand, there is another group of people who BY FAITH BELIEVE AND RECEIVE JESUS CHRIST as God's GIFT. To them God gave the RIGHT TO BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD. [John 1:12]. They are the Believers, Saints, Church, God's People, Justified, Sanctified, Redeemed, Citizens of Heaven, God's elect, etc.
Catholic:
With regard to rewards, may I post my answer tomorrow? I left my notes in the office so I cannot give you the passages. But the point is this: Salvation is a reward. I know this will make you laugh, cause you to see “works” which for you are all one and the same i.e., the works in the whole system of debt (the Romans 4:4 type).
However, there IS another type of works – I didn’t say that, Paul did-- and that is the type that justifies ( Rom 2:4-13 type – also see Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:12-17; 2
Cor 5:10). And this latter type is the type of works I’m speaking of.
Protestant:
Please do not confuse the 2 judgments [Judgment Seat of Christ, 2 Cor 5:10, and White Throne Judgment, Revelation 20:11]
(Catholic reply at the end of this long Protestant answer.)
White Throne Judgment is where God finally destined those who rejected Christ as their Messiah to their final destiny - eternal condemnation in Hell and those who believe, accepted Jesus Christ to their Final Destiny - Eternal Bliss in Heaven.
Judgment Seat of Christ talks about judgment of the BELIEVERS of the things they did while in the Body. God expects us to labor for Him, live a life of holiness and obedience. Of course, God is just He will reward us believers according to our PERFORMANCE as members of Christ Body - the Church. - IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION. Some Christians will get CROWNS, OTHERS MORE CROWNS. And certainly there will be others who will suffer SHAME because of their lousy kind of life shown in the Body. To prove this, examine the passage you use
1 Corinthians 3:12-17 [KJV] - 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
• v12 - If a believer does things in the name of Christ [v11] - as foundation, he can use expensive materials [gold, silver, precious stones], representing the kind of work he does. Or he can use inexpensive, destructible materials [wood, hay, stubble] representing the lousy works he does.
• v13 - However, the problem is, all works will be revealed. We cannot hide our motive of why we are doing it. God will test it by fire [this is symbolic of how gold is made pure - by fire]
• v14 - If our works survives the test because we are using expensive materials [representing our motives], we will be rewarded [with crowns, NOT SALVATION as it is already given]
• v15 - If our works do not survive or burned because we are using inexpensive destructible materials representing our ill-motive, we shall suffer loss [shame]
NOTICE: HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED ESCAPING THROUGH THE FIRES. SIMPLY BECAUSE WHAT IS BEING TESTED IS THE WORK DONE IN THE BODY NOT THE DOER HIMSELF BECAUSE HE IS A BELIEVER
• V16 - Don't you know that you yourselves is the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? - This statement can not be given to the UNBELIEVER.
• V17 - Warning: As Believers, treat the Church with reverence.
Catholic reply re JUDGMENT SEAT.
Let me answer through a series of questions.
On 2 Cor 5:10 The judgment seat of Christ. Please answer true or false. If you answer “yes” to all, which you have to because they’re all statements of yours, look at the conclusion in numbers 6 and 7.
1. The judgment seat of Christ talks about the judgment of the BELIEVERS of the things they did while in the body. T/F
2. Only the BELIEVERS will be judged. The UNBELIEVERS are not among those to be judged. T/F
3. Being BELIEVERS, the judgment here has NOTHING to do with whether one will be saved or condemned. T/F
4. Being BELIEVERS, the judgment will be about the number of CROWNS each BELIEVER gets. Of course, how can it be otherwise, since even while living, BELIEVERS are already assured of heaven. T/F
5. Some BELIEVERS will have few CROWNS, others many.
6. Therefore, Paul is WRONG in 2 Cor 5:10 when he says that the BELIEVERS will receive either good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. As we have said before, BELIEVERS can only receive good, never evil. T/F
7. Or, therefore, Paul is RIGHT, believers receive good or evil, according to what each has done in the body. But of course, you will have to believe then that evil – like good- also exists in heaven. Isn't that funny? God side-by-side with evil? T/F
But really now, is salvation ALSO a reward. The answer is YES!
(Ref Ludwig Ott)
By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.
Note that this is not the same as what you are right now thinking: reward for actions which precede grace, BUT rewards for actions PRECEDED BY GRACE. In other words, grace – specifically antecedent grace- which is UNMERITED, PRECEDES actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously.
The Church teaches that for the justified, eternal life is BOTH a gift or grace promised by God AND a reward for his own good works and merits. As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, AT THE SAME TIME gifts of God AND meritorious acts of man. I’m referring here to TRUE merit, i.e., of meritum de condigno (a technical term).
Sacred Scripture says that eternal blessedness in heaven is the reward for good works performed on this earth, and rewards and merits are correlative concepts . In Mt 5:12 Jesus promises rich rewards In heaven to those who, for his sake, are scorned and persecuted. In Mt 25:34 ff, the Judge of the World decrees eternal reward for the just on the ground of their good works.
In Christ’s discourses, the reward motive frequently recurs (Mt 19:29; Mt 25:21; Luke 6:38. St. Paul, who stresses grace so much also emphasizes the meritorious nature of good works performed with grace—he teaches that the reward is in proportion to the works: “He will render to every man according to his works (Rom 2:6). “Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor (1 Cor 3:8). (See also Col 3:24; Heb 10:35; Heb 11:6.)
When Paul characterizes the eternal reward as “the crown of justice which the Lord will render (2 Tim 4:8), he thereby shows the good works of the just establish a legal claim to reward on God (see also Heb 6:10).
Sir, before we can go further ahead of other arguments and views, we have to settle first on the question: IS SALVATION A GIFT OR A REWARD. In my view, it cannot be both. Because the way I see it in the scriptures, there is a "synonymity" of GIFT and GRACE. And Grace is simply defined as UNMERITED FAVOR. Meaning, we are given this GIFT that we do not actually have in iota of right deserving it. This is purely GIFT because NOBODY can have it no matter how he performs. And it must be given BY SOMEBODY WHO HAS IT. And sad to say, no amount of human effort or accomplishment can ever "BUY" it.
The epistles are addressed to people WHO HAVE ACCEPTED THIS GIFT. That explains why in most of his epistles, Paul addressed the recipients as SAINTS, CHURCH, BELIEVERS, SANCTIFIED, JUSTIFIED, CHILDREN OF GOD. Are these people perfect? NO. Look at Ephesians, Galatians, etc. These books tell us the admonitions of Paul to his readers to live a life of Holiness and Obedience. This is so simply because even if these people ACCEPTED THE GIFT by putting their Faith in Jesus, nowhere in the scriptures that they are described as PERFECT, SINLESS PEOPLE.
Pardon me, but let me give a simplistic Illustration again:
This Christmas, you as a loving Father will certainly
give your children gifts. You will agree with me that you will give this gift to them not because they are perfect children, but simply because you love them. Will you take this gift back one day if they will not perform well as you expected? Certainly Not, because this is a GIFT not a REWARD.
Catholic:
Okay. Let me see if I got you right.
1 Cor 9:27 Okay. I think your reply can be summarized by the following: “Again, if you take this “crowns” and “rewards” as salvation, then it renders salvation or eternal life as a REWARD no longer as a GIFT.”
I will have my answer tomorrow- I left my Navarre Romans and Galatians bible, I couldn’t check on the passages, but offhand I have a few questions:
1. Your statement is based on two crucial assumptions:
First, a “gift” cannot be rejected.
Second, salvation follows a strict either-or situation: either it’s a gift, in which case it cannot be a reward; or it’s a reward, in which case it cannot be a gift.
insert)
Protestant:
Sorry Sir, this is not an assumption. Romans 6:23 is very clear. Salvation/Eternal Life is a GIFT not a REWARD. For clarity, REWARD IS NOT A GIFT AND GIFT IS NOT A REWARD.
Catholic:
The question is: How valid are these two assumptions?
First, on whether a gift may not be rejected:
Luke 10:16 – “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
John 12:48 “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day”
Mt 10:33; Lk 12:9; Tit 1:16; Acts 7:39; Rom 2:8; Acts 13:46; 1 Tim 1:19; Lk 17:25; 1 Pet 2:4
Protestant:
All the verses above talk about 2 groups of people. Those who will REJECT Jesus Christ whom the Bible refers to generally as UNBELIEVERS. To them are the warnings of God that they will be REJECTED because they REJECTED Jesus Christ as God's Gift. To them is eternal condemnation. To them is denied eternal life. To them is HOPELESSNESS.
On the other hand, there is another group of people who BY FAITH BELIEVE AND RECEIVE JESUS CHRIST as God's GIFT. To them God gave the RIGHT TO BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD. [John 1:12]. They are the Believers, Saints, Church, God's People, Justified, Sanctified, Redeemed, Citizens of Heaven, God's elect, etc.
Catholic:
With regard to rewards, may I post my answer tomorrow? I left my notes in the office so I cannot give you the passages. But the point is this: Salvation is a reward. I know this will make you laugh, cause you to see “works” which for you are all one and the same i.e., the works in the whole system of debt (the Romans 4:4 type).
However, there IS another type of works – I didn’t say that, Paul did-- and that is the type that justifies ( Rom 2:4-13 type – also see Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:12-17; 2
Cor 5:10). And this latter type is the type of works I’m speaking of.
Protestant:
Please do not confuse the 2 judgments [Judgment Seat of Christ, 2 Cor 5:10, and White Throne Judgment, Revelation 20:11]
(Catholic reply at the end of this long Protestant answer.)
White Throne Judgment is where God finally destined those who rejected Christ as their Messiah to their final destiny - eternal condemnation in Hell and those who believe, accepted Jesus Christ to their Final Destiny - Eternal Bliss in Heaven.
Judgment Seat of Christ talks about judgment of the BELIEVERS of the things they did while in the Body. God expects us to labor for Him, live a life of holiness and obedience. Of course, God is just He will reward us believers according to our PERFORMANCE as members of Christ Body - the Church. - IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION. Some Christians will get CROWNS, OTHERS MORE CROWNS. And certainly there will be others who will suffer SHAME because of their lousy kind of life shown in the Body. To prove this, examine the passage you use
1 Corinthians 3:12-17 [KJV] - 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
• v12 - If a believer does things in the name of Christ [v11] - as foundation, he can use expensive materials [gold, silver, precious stones], representing the kind of work he does. Or he can use inexpensive, destructible materials [wood, hay, stubble] representing the lousy works he does.
• v13 - However, the problem is, all works will be revealed. We cannot hide our motive of why we are doing it. God will test it by fire [this is symbolic of how gold is made pure - by fire]
• v14 - If our works survives the test because we are using expensive materials [representing our motives], we will be rewarded [with crowns, NOT SALVATION as it is already given]
• v15 - If our works do not survive or burned because we are using inexpensive destructible materials representing our ill-motive, we shall suffer loss [shame]
NOTICE: HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED ESCAPING THROUGH THE FIRES. SIMPLY BECAUSE WHAT IS BEING TESTED IS THE WORK DONE IN THE BODY NOT THE DOER HIMSELF BECAUSE HE IS A BELIEVER
• V16 - Don't you know that you yourselves is the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? - This statement can not be given to the UNBELIEVER.
• V17 - Warning: As Believers, treat the Church with reverence.
Catholic reply re JUDGMENT SEAT.
Let me answer through a series of questions.
On 2 Cor 5:10 The judgment seat of Christ. Please answer true or false. If you answer “yes” to all, which you have to because they’re all statements of yours, look at the conclusion in numbers 6 and 7.
1. The judgment seat of Christ talks about the judgment of the BELIEVERS of the things they did while in the body. T/F
2. Only the BELIEVERS will be judged. The UNBELIEVERS are not among those to be judged. T/F
3. Being BELIEVERS, the judgment here has NOTHING to do with whether one will be saved or condemned. T/F
4. Being BELIEVERS, the judgment will be about the number of CROWNS each BELIEVER gets. Of course, how can it be otherwise, since even while living, BELIEVERS are already assured of heaven. T/F
5. Some BELIEVERS will have few CROWNS, others many.
6. Therefore, Paul is WRONG in 2 Cor 5:10 when he says that the BELIEVERS will receive either good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. As we have said before, BELIEVERS can only receive good, never evil. T/F
7. Or, therefore, Paul is RIGHT, believers receive good or evil, according to what each has done in the body. But of course, you will have to believe then that evil – like good- also exists in heaven. Isn't that funny? God side-by-side with evil? T/F
But really now, is salvation ALSO a reward. The answer is YES!
(Ref Ludwig Ott)
By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.
Note that this is not the same as what you are right now thinking: reward for actions which precede grace, BUT rewards for actions PRECEDED BY GRACE. In other words, grace – specifically antecedent grace- which is UNMERITED, PRECEDES actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously.
The Church teaches that for the justified, eternal life is BOTH a gift or grace promised by God AND a reward for his own good works and merits. As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, AT THE SAME TIME gifts of God AND meritorious acts of man. I’m referring here to TRUE merit, i.e., of meritum de condigno (a technical term).
Sacred Scripture says that eternal blessedness in heaven is the reward for good works performed on this earth, and rewards and merits are correlative concepts . In Mt 5:12 Jesus promises rich rewards In heaven to those who, for his sake, are scorned and persecuted. In Mt 25:34 ff, the Judge of the World decrees eternal reward for the just on the ground of their good works.
In Christ’s discourses, the reward motive frequently recurs (Mt 19:29; Mt 25:21; Luke 6:38. St. Paul, who stresses grace so much also emphasizes the meritorious nature of good works performed with grace—he teaches that the reward is in proportion to the works: “He will render to every man according to his works (Rom 2:6). “Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor (1 Cor 3:8). (See also Col 3:24; Heb 10:35; Heb 11:6.)
When Paul characterizes the eternal reward as “the crown of justice which the Lord will render (2 Tim 4:8), he thereby shows the good works of the just establish a legal claim to reward on God (see also Heb 6:10).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)