Dan Chapa

I'm going to make two contentions in this post.  First, there's a necessary connection between true faith and salvation.1  This is Paul's point.  Second, there is a necessary connection between true faith and works.  This is James' point.  The council of Trent denies both of these claims by saying people can have true faith through which they are put into a state of grace and lose their state of grace through mortal sin, while remaining true believers.  This is because Trent denied "sola fide" - charity must be added to faith.     The Necessary Connection between True Faith and Salvation Christ promised that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.  In John 6:35, Christ says “he that believes on me shall never thirst at any time.” Christ uses what Dan Wallace calls an Empathic negation”, which denies not only the occurrence but the possibility of any uncertainty about the occurrence.2   But Trent s...

Christ promised that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.  In John 10:28, He puts it in such strong terms, it's as if Christ is jumping up and down and shouting "THEY WILL NEVER EVER EVER PERISH".1 The biggest problem I have with Catholicism is their doctrine that true believers sometimes perish and do not have eternal life. I don't know why this problem doesn't receive that much attention from Protestants.  Perhaps it's because many Protestants teach salvation cannot be lost.  Calvin 's response to the Catholic teaching on unformed faith was to insist that faith cannot be separated from love.2   True enough, but Luther's reaction was stronger: "In this manner they completely transfer justification from faith and attribute it solely to love". 3  Could the difference in these responses be due to Calvin's saying temporary faith is false faith whereas Luther said temporary faith is true faith? Catholics teach b...

Pope Francis recently said:   “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the blood of Christ. All of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!” he declared. “‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the blood of Christ has redeemed us all!” “And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace,” Francis continued. “If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter. We need that so much.” “We must meet one another doing good,” the Pope asserted. “‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good. We will meet one another there.” ( link ) The Pope is of course equivocating two vital terms ("Sons of God" and "meeting there") to teach universalism or a...

In Unam Sanctum, the Pope declared himself to be over the secular government and history is replete with examples of Pope’s trying to control governments. 1 By contrast, the Baptist Faith and Message sates: “ Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work .” Which is more in line with the American Way  and the 1 st Amendment which states “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”? ------------------------------------ 1 We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in...

Interpretation brings out the meaning of something. There has to be some original being interpreted and some level of faithfulness to represent that original. When interpreting the bible, you have to know what the bible says and try to represent what it says. Now bad interpretations are still interpretations. Much leeway can be given for those who are not experienced in the word of truth (Hebrews 5:14). A child might interpret scripture badly, but they are still interpreting scripture, so long as they are trying to represent what they read. But if someone simply disagrees with scripture, they are not interpreting scripture. For example, if someone “rationalizes” a biblical account of a miracle, they are not interpreting scripture. Because intent is involved, sometimes it’s hard to say if someone is interpreting the bible or not. For example, I recently read a homosexual argue Paul, in Romans 1:26-27, does not condemn all homosexual activity. When someone challenged this, the...

James White and Turretinfan are doing a good job responding to Jason Stellman’s interview about converting to Roman Catholicism  ( Response 1 , Response 2 ), but I wanted to add my two cents on a few things.  About 30 minutes in, Stellman argues if you really understand sanctification you don’t need imputation.   If the Holy Spirit makes us fulfill the law, why do you need the imputation of Christ’s righteousness?   But Stellman’s argument works equally well (or poorly) against forgiveness.   If you really understand sanctification you don’t need imputation forgiveness. If the Holy Spirit makes us fulfill the law, why do you need  the imputation of Christ’s righteousness forgiveness? 1   If Stellman truly understood forgiveness, he would have no need for penance, purgatory or the Roman Catholic doctrine of suffering, which confuses suffering for sin with suffering for Christ. Likewise, when Stellman argues that God does not require perfection, ...

According to Roman Catholic theology, both penance and purgatory make reparations to God’s justice by satisfying the temporal punishments for sins that have already been forgiven .  Given this line of thinking, why not go for the more brutal forms of penance?  ( link ) Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

The election of a new Coptic Pope is a good reminder that Rome isn't the only ancient church claiming to be the one true church.  ( link ) Rome and Alexandria split over a bit of theology that would by today's standards look trivial.  Same with Rome and the East.  Makes you wonder, did they take theology more seriously back then?  Or were the theological issues only the pretext and the political autonomy was the real goal?  Probably both.  In any case,  the ancient church was not perfectly united in the idea that the Pope in Rome was the boss. 

In Ineffabilus Deus, Pope Pius IX’s declaration of the Immaculate Conception (the idea that Mary was born without original sin), the Pope referred to sanctions issued by previous Popes, forbidding interpreting scripture or the fathers in a way other than clearly asserting the Immaculate Conception. 1   He then commissions a study by numbers scholars to get their opinion on the Immaculate Conception. 2      Of course, they are forbidden from giving him any other answer then the one he wants them to give.   There are a rot of problems with this approach, but one of them is that people’s opinions are inherently personal and ultimately can’t be outsourced.   ----------------------------------------------------------- 1   "And therefore, against all and everyone of those who shall continue to construe the said Constitutions and Decrees in a manner apt to frustrate the favor which is thereby given to the said doctrine, and to the feast and relative v...

Steve Ray recently pointed out that the bible attributes salvation to things other than faith.   ( link ) Salvation, taken narrowly, is a synonym for justification, but salvation also has a broad sense, including things like entrance into heaven itself.   We are justified by faith alone, but that does not mean we are saved (in the broad sense) by faith alone.   My ear alone hears, but if it’s torn from my head, it will no longer hear.   Likewise, faith, when not accompanied with works, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and forgiving others, does not save.   In this sense, things besides faith are conditions for salvation, but they do not receive God’s free gift of justification – only faith does. One of the categories of items Steve mentioned deserves special attention – God’s grace, the cross, Christ’s blood and His righteousness.   It’s wrong to oppose faith with God’s grace.   Faith does not earn but rather receives God’s gifts.

Is it her people, her leadership, her beliefs?  The term catholic usually means universal, so one would think it's her 1 billion plus people spread throughout the world.  However, I recently pointed out that an overwhelming majority of Catholics use birth control.  ( link )  Does this mean the Catholic Church is OK with birth control?  Matthew Bellisario responded by pointing me to an earlier post he had written where he claimed all Christians up till the 1930's rejected birth control.  All Christians up until the 1930s interpreted this text as referring to Onan's punishment of death [Genesis 38 7:9] by his act of “coitus interruptus.” ( link ) I responded by quoting Jovinianus' alternative explanation in the 4th century ( link ). Matthew then made an interesting move; backing away from his claim of 'all Christians' to 'every Christian group'.  every Christian group before the 1930 interpreted this passage the way I am interp...

Jimmy Akin’s book the Father’s Know Best provides hundreds of quotations from the Church Fathers on various topics allegedly showing the link between the early church and modern Roman Catholicism. Of greatest interest to me were the 143 quotations from the Fathers in support of the Papacy. Reading the book gave me an opportunity to learn more about the Fathers. Below is a matrix of the results of my review. However, given my review I will risk providing some overall conclusions. I didn’t find anything in the Fathers that explicitly taught Papal infallibly or got into ex cathedra vs. non-ex cathedra statements by Popes. So right off the bat I would say the Fathers were not Roman Catholic. However, that doesn’t mean they were Southern Baptists either. Many times they were somewhere in-between. As such, I categorized each quotation from the Fathers Know Best on the Papacy in degrees of agreement. My categories were: 1. No objection 2. No biggie 3. Don’t like the wording, but OK ...

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2011/05/luther-calvin-hitler-stalin-and-mao.html To give credit to Matthew, he is just following Trent the way the Church tells him he should.  He's being consistent - while many Catholics downplay Trent in an attempt to be more ecumenical.

It appears most Catholics ingnor Rome's extra-biblical requirements on birth control.  ( link )

The formating wasn't great so here's a link to a google docs format: http://www.danchapa.blogspot.com/2011/05/review-of-fathers-know-best-on-pope_10.html Jimmy Akin’s book the Father’s Know Best provides hundreds of quotations from the Church Fathers on various topics allegedly showing the link between the early church and modern Roman Catholicism. Of greatest interest to me were the 143 quotations from the Fathers in support of the Papacy. Reading the book gave me an opportunity to learn more about the Fathers. Below is a matrix of the results of my review. However, given my review I will risk providing some overall conclusions. I didn’t find anything in the Fathers that explicitly taught Papal infallibly or got into ex cathedra vs. non-ex cathedra statements by Popes. So right off the bat I would say the Fathers were not Roman Catholic. However, that doesn’t mean they were Southern Baptists either. Many times they were somewhere in-between. As such, I categorized eac...

I claimed, and still do, that sola scriptura is not responsible for all the doctrinal disagreements between Protestants that my friend and CatholicNick had listed. Rather, I cited varying presuppositions, degree of education, study, spiritual maturity or the sinfulness of the individuals involved as other drivers of doctrinal disagreements. My friend disagreed and reasserted that sola scriptura is the reason. But I had offered an argument, regarding intra-Catholic disagreement regarding free will and predestination. He responded by saying: “The main problem here is the seeming assumption that these matters must be defined in an "either/or" fashion rather than "both/and." Catholic teaching on matters such as these is often both/and, for example, the Catechism addresses the relationship of freewill and predestination by stating: To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination"...

I had claimed, and still do, that Rome’s anathemas needlessly divide the body of Christ; far more than sola scriptura does. For example, Rome (not scripture) anathematizes those who think indulgences are worthless. So Rome causes divisions that scripture alone does not. This is not just in theory but in practice. Joseelcarpintero commented in a way that lumped me in with the unsaved false teachers in 1 John 2:19. And that’s not the only time people have tried to scare me into the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, Rome is not the only group to anathematize me. With everyone thinking they alone have found the one true way, the only thing I know to do is turn to Christ and put my trust in Him. Now consider the reverse. I don’t consider joseelcarpintero a false teacher. I don’t know him but I hope that he is trusting in Christ for his salvation. So which is causing division, sola scriptura or Rome’s anathemas? My friend tried to soften the blow of anathema by saying: “Anathema is ac...

A Roman Catholic friend of mine posted a list of teachings Protestants cannot agree upon due to sola scriptura. ( link )  Along with the list were these comments: “The following is a ‘open’ list of teachings (subject to further expansion) which Protestants cannot agree upon due to the doctrinal relativism caused by Sola Scriptura. Though many Protestants today would “solve” this problem by tossing a lot of these into the “non-essential” category, I believe the doctrinal issues I’ve mentioned have been clearly seen to cause division among Protestants… …As a Catholic, it is easy for me to treat this list as a “checklist” of sorts. All I have to do is go down each point and reference the matter in the Catechism. The Catechism is chock full of Bible citations, references to the Church Fathers and council documents, etc. wherein I can read the reasons behind why the Church teaches what it does on these matters.” ‘Division’ does not mean the same thing to Protestants and Catholics...

Catholics interpret “born of water” in John 3:5 as baptism and therefore conclude baptism is necessary for salvation. Here’s the passage: Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Born of water has been taken as 1) the Spirit or cleansing work of the Spirit, 2) natural birth or 3) baptism. For now let’s assume it means baptism and see how it plays out. Would first century Jews have instantly recognized 'born of water' as meaning baptism? Certainly Nicodemus was aware of baptism. John the Baptist baptized people for repentance. Some evidence suggests Jews baptized proselytes and even called it birth. “Everyone agreed that a Gentile became a Jew through proselyte baptism. The big discussion in Nicodemus' day was the degree of cleanliness. Was he immediately clean as "a little child just born" (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b*) and a "child of one day" (Mass. Ger. c. 2*)” ( lin...