The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum OrthodoxCatholic: Questions & Responses for You

You said here,

There are some adults who have no volition either. This is why the Catholic Church defines mortal sin in such a precise manner, i.e., that one must KNOW that what one is doing is wrong (sin), one must choose to do that despite this knowledge, and one must not be under coercion. Babies may be willful in their natural state (old nature) but they are not willingly choosing sin because they have no knowledge that what they are doing is wrong.

You said here,

If a man is not free to say "yes" to God, then it is not marriage, it is rape. God comes to us as our Beloved Bridegroom and waits that we either accept or reject His proposal to enter into the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.

You said here,

[T]heologians I have read on the filoque admit that the filioque is more of a matter of semantics. Both the East and West hold to the orthodoxy of opinion on the deity of Christ. Both the East and the West were trying to defend the deity of Christ against heresy. But due to the politics and emotions of the time, reconcilliation was not easy in this matter.

You said here,

Basic covenant structure:

covenant head

covenant helpmeet

offspring from their union.

If the Holy Father is not the head of the Church on earth, then who is? Luther? Falwell? James Boice (whoooops, he's gone!)

Who?

The earthly institution must have a head to fit the covenantal paradigm.

Might I ask who that is?

You said here,

Jesus is not on earth. How can he be the federal head when He is not HERE?

This smacks of the Manichean heresy of dualism: that the physical body is bad and the spiritual is all that really counts.

Where is this in scripture?

It is taught in principle in the OT and the NT follows suit. God was the King of the Jewish nation. But while God was in Heaven, it was the high priest who was the covenantal head over the nation. As I mentioned before, the sin of the high priest as federal head over the Jewish theocracy is what doomed the Jews to near extinction in AD 70 when the judgment of God fell upon them (Matt. 23 - 24).

According to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 6:19–8:6,

This hope [i.e., the hope of perseverance] we have as an anchor of the soul, a [hope] both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation [of his name], king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one [receives them], of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need [was there] for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become [such] not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of Him,
"YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as [it was] not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
"THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER'");
so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.


The [former] priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, [appoints] a Son, made perfect forever.

Now the main point in what has been said [is this]: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN." But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

You said <a href="" target="_blank">here</a>,

This was one of the chief problems I encountered with the idea of a "spiritual church" as posited by the Reformers. Just HOW does Christ speak CLEARLY AND PERSPICUOUSLY to an earthly people if He is in Heaven and His voice is not heard?

And no, it is NOT the Bible.

Sorry. That won't wash and the number of Protestant denominations that abound with varying different interpretations of the scriptures, yet all claiming to be led of the Holy Spirit is a moot and eloquent argument against that idea.

I think have been diligent in answering your questions, but you have missed some of mine which I think are important. These questions are found (whether or not as fully elaborated) in several posts I have made in response to you and which I would like to see your answers to.

Would you explain how a lack of knowledge equals a lack of volition? The commission of sin is not dependent upon our knowledge.

Much as you may break the law of the land by speeding though unaware of the speed limit, you may break the law of God (commit sin) without realizing it. In any case, every choice you make is by your own volition.

Even while being coerced, one still has the choice to disobey the coercer. If he obeys the coercer to commit sin, he still commits sin. The presence of coercion does not negate the action.

Interesting you should bring up this illustration! Are you aware that entering into marriage in the ancient world (as a matter of fact, up even to the modern age) was hardly the equal decision of the man and his betrothed? Rare indeed was it for a woman to have a free choice in whom she might marry, although the father certainly did. Did these marriages classify as "rape"? Does our Father's choice to have us married to Christ classify as "rape"?

This goes to you arguments regarding the classification of the Eastern Orthodox as Catholic along with those churches under the Pope's authority. If it is merely a matter of semantics that remains unresolved because of the politics and emotions of a millennium ago, why doesn't Rome, being more ecumenically inclined than the East, simply drop the filioque, in order to facilitate reconciliation between herself and what she considers her estranged sister? Would that be a worthy goal, or is the filioque retained because it is an important issue of doctrinal catholicity, and not merely a matter of semantics?

However, for the sake of argument, let us agree that the Pope is the earthly covenantal head of the church. Who, then, is the Pope's covenantal helpmeet equivalent to Mary in heaven and to Eve?

In addition to pointing out that this could be considered inconsistent on the basis of Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist, i.e., that Christ is indeed (bodily!) present on Earth in the elements of the bread and wine, I asked you to identify our High Priest. You have notyet answered the question.

Although the Pope claims for himself the title Pontifex Maximus (following indeed after the manner of the Emperors of Rome), this is what the Scriptures declare regarding our High Priest:

Indeed, there is much, much more that could be said, but it is clearly a vain thing which the Pope proclaims, that he is the living head of the church on earth, and its High Priest. We have but ONE High Priest, and He is Christ Jesus.

We know that men are fallen, and I believe that this means they are affected in the totality of their being. No part of man is not affected by the sinfulness he inherits as a result of the Fall: not the body, not the intellect, not the emotions, and not the will. All of these are, as a result of the fall, inclined toward evil. This total inclination toward evil as a result of the Fall is described in Genesis 6:5, "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." This must account, at least in part, for the variety of interpretations among Protestants, and certainly at least as much also for the variety of teachings taught and believed (unofficially, perhaps) by those who are under the authority of the Pope.

I say the canonical books are authoritative precisely because they are God-breathed, not because the sacred tradition of the church identifies them as canonical.

The canon is firstly a function of Scripture, not of the church. Whereas the Protestant cites Scripture because Scripture claims itself to be God-breathed, the Catholic cites Scripture because the church claims that Scripture is God-breathed. God is in Himself the supreme infallible authority. If we will not accept God's word as such on the basis of the authority which He claims in that same word, how can we accept it on the basis of any authority which is not God?

Ultimately, unless you are in yourself infallible, your admitting to Rome's authority over the church is at least as fallible an act as my admitting to Scripture's authority over the church. Since the Pope does not claim to be God, whereas Scripture claims to be the very breath of God Himself, I have no cause to bow before the Pope.

I would disagree. Sin is a willing disobedience to the revealed will of God. It seems that in the days prior to Christ, God had a different standard due to men's ignorance of His purposes:

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Why would God wink at sin in the past? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Perhaps the answer is found here:

Luke 12:47-48 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Seems that God has standards of guilt that depend a lot upon the knowledge we have of His will.

If the speed limit is not posted -- for instance, vandals knocked down the signs -- then is one still guilty?

This gets into the area of "mortal" and "venial" sin. I am not saying that there is no sin, and if I made it look like that I apologized.

Mortal sin is an act of wickedness in which the person knows that the deed is evil, does it with full consent of the will, and is uncoerced. In other words, despite knowing that this is wrong, the person charges into it full steam ahead.

But if someone is holding your child hostage and tells you to go rob 1st National Bank and bring him the money, then there is a serious mitigating circumstance -- the coercion of concern for your child's life. God takes this into account, and the severity of the sin is lessened so that it is not a mortal sin.

Remember, in a coveantal relationship, the covenant is "cut" by an act of the will by both persons. Covenant is a giving of onesself to another....but one cannot give to another without an act of the will in which one says "yes"

Genesis 24:58 And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.

This is the biblical pattern of covenant. I don't care a whit about how the pagan nations did marrigae (or should I say undid it?)

Also, perhaps you are unaware that we, as Eastern Catholics, recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday without the filioque and that with Rome's approval. We have not had to bend the knee to their understanding.

That is a very good question. The answer is: the Church. More specifically, when we speak of the Church, we speak of the Institution in which reside the rules of life for the believer, and in which are "sub-covenant families" which are the individual parishes. It is the Holy Father who is responsible for the believers, but obviously, he must have help, and that from the bishops and priests who comprise the Church.

It is not without reason that the Church is called "The Holy MOTHER Church."

Does that seem sensible? It did to me when I was trying to reform my eclessiology from the Protestant paradigm and to fit a covenantal form.

I have found nothing in Catholicism which indicates that the pope is the high priest of the New Covenant. What I do see referred to is the kingdom structure of the Old Covenant kingdom in which the king always had a prime minister who acted in his stead when he was absent from the throne. When the prime minister spoke, it was as if the king spoke, but remember, that which the prime minister said was not his will, but the mind and will of the king.

You see, this goes back again to that issue of infallibility and the Holy Spirit ruling the mind of the occupant of the Chair of St. Peter. Why do you think that the few wicked popes who held that chair were kept from introducing reforms to the Church's moral doctrines which would have legalized their adulteries and abominations?

I would ask you to please show me an official document of the Church which states that the pope is the high priest of the New Covenant (Church).

And the Church would agree with you. Do you know that in the Catechism of the Church, there is a section which explicitly states that unless a man is called by the Holy Spirit, he CANNOT COME TO CHRIST? I was surprized to find this initially. But then, a lot of what I found in the Catholic Faith has surprized me, for the Faith is nothing like the characature which I believed was the Church. The Church is anything but Pelegian.

Before the Council of Chalcedon, there were a number of epistles which were considered to be "God breathed" and worthy of being called "of divine origin". One was the Epistle of Clement, which was read in the Corinthian church every Sunday. There is simply no epistle among these which tells us which of the others is to be considered in the list.

I think you will admit with me that it is NOT a matter of accepting God's Word as such, but rather the INTERPRETATION of that Word. For instance, John 6, the chapter which introduces us to the Eucharist. There must be at least 6 different interpretations of what Jesus said there which give 6 different ideas of what the Lord's Supper is supposed to be. Each interpretation though comes from believing the Bible, doesn't it?

So we are left with the question --WHO is promised the protection of infallibility in regards to proper interpretation of scripture?

Perhaps so, but it is nonetheless a sin which merits punishment.

No, it does not seem sensible to me according to the covenantal paradigm you have set forth for this reason: the church is not a single individual, as were both Mary and Eve.

Rome's interpretation comes from believing in the authority of Rome's tradition, not from believing that Scripture is itself sufficient.

No one is.

Yes. But the question has to do with the degree of punishment merited. That is something that seems to fail Calvinist understanding. As I remember, EVERY sin deserves the same punishment -- eternal hell. Yet this doesn't even correspond with the earthly analogy of punishment found in the civil codes which God gave in the OT, does it? The punishment fits the crime, which is the point I am making, and not all sins are worthy of eternal hell. That was Luther's problem - he thought that every single peccadillo deserved God hanging him upside down and flame-roasting him to a golden brown, and as we know, Luther had some serious psychological problems.

There is nothing that says that the helpmeet cannot be a corporate entity such as the Church. This follows the paradigm in the OT where the coveantal head was the high priest (who offered the sacrifice of covenantal renewal once a year for his "family" -- YOM KIPPUR), the Jewish theocracy was the helpmeet to assist him in his work, consisting of the Law of God for direction and nurture and the priests to reconcile sinners to God, and the circumcized believers. It is a covenantal triad and therefore I feel I am on safe ground with this paradigm.

Is not the same thing to be said of the Presbyterian arguments from Scripture, as well as those of the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Fundamentalists, etc. etc. etc?

You, as well as all Calvinists, totally misunderstand Holy Tradition. Tradition is that which comes from those who first interpreted the words of our Lord, who were given the oracles of the Faith, and who kept the Faith and passed it on. Tradition is not something which is made up of thin air and a couple bad pastrami with pickle sandwiches. It is the living link we have to all that was believed in the past. And in the case of the Catholic Faith and especially the writings of the first Christian leaders, the Early Fathers, that link is the link to what was originally believed and practiced, even before we had a canon of scripture.

Look, how do you think that they got the idea of the Real Presence and "baptismal regeneration" as Early as the writings of the Didache in 110 AD? Remember, those writings represent what was commonly believed among all Christendom at that time. There was simply no other teaching being taught.

That is what Holy Tradition is.

Now "tradition" (small "t") would be, for instance, how our Eastern Church administers the Eucharist. We do not use the flat paten you are familiar with, but instead, in the Orthodox praxis, place cubes of consecrated bread into the chalice and the wine soaked bread is then administered to the communicant by means of a golden spoon. Very different. That is an Eastern tradition. It is administrative, has nothing to do with the doctrines or teaching of the Church, and if we had to stop doing it tommorrow, would not invalidate our Eucharist to do it otherwise.

Omigoodness!! Stop and think about what you have just said. If salvation is totally dependant upon knowing God in truth -- if one may be considered as "not saved" because they hold to error, then by your own admission, we are in deep trouble, considering the multitude of opinions that are out there in Christendom. Some of these differences actually involve salvation itself, so that this is no light matter. Do you see what a problem this creates if you do not have a source of infallible truth?

For that matter, why even believe in the Trinity? That teaching was validated by a Catholic council, yet you state that neither they, nor anyone else is infallible or reliable as such for the proper interpretation of the scriptures.

All sins are worthy of eternal hell.

I believe the Westminster Confession's interpretation is correct because I regard it as a faithful exposition of Scripture.

Can Catholics show that their sacred tradition was actually handed down from the apostles themselves?

The problem for any such tradition is that it has no means of establishing itself as being handed down from the original authority so claimed.

Now I ask you, is the Holy Spirit capable of guiding all believers into all truth without bestowing infallibility upon any of them?

I believe in the Trinity because it is scripturally warranted

The only thing that is worthy of eternal hell is not being reconciled to God through the death of Christ. Hell is not a place. It is a state of being. People talk about hell as if it is a place separate from God.

Tell me, WHERE is it in the universe that God is not? Is there any such place where God does not reside, does not fill it all? Not according to the Psalmist.

Stealing a loaf of bread if you are hungry is not the same as aborting a baby because you are a wanton fornicator. The former is not worthy of hell as is the latter.

Of course we can, and moreso than any Protestant can. There is simply NO EVIDENCE that suggests that Reformed doctrines existed in the first, second, third.....etc. centuries. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the interpretation of our Lord's words in scripture were understood in an extremely Catholic manner.

[. . .]

This is ridiculous. Polycarp was trained by Apostle John. The very first generation after the apostles shows a distinctly Catholic understanding of our Lord's words. From WHOM but the apostles would they have learned this.

As I have said before, from the evidence of the MULTITUDES of interpretations of the Bible outside of Catholicism, the answer is OBVIOUSLY NOT

Furthermore, you have no scriptural proofs that show that individuals have the right to private interpretation over and above the judgment of the Church.

While it is true that the Holy Spirit can open a person's eyes to see his need of the Savior and point out that Savior in scripture, to think that individuals -- especially those who are unlearned -- can come up with a correct understanding of the deep and difficult doctrines of scripture on their own is just patently false.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Heretical bishop Arias didn't think so. It is recorded, in fact, that the sum of his whole argument came from scripture. Perhaps it is not as clear in scripture as you would like to believe.

One would think you'd be more familiar with the Epistle of James, which Catholics so gleefully use to, as they think, tear apart the holy doctrine of justification by faith alone. Here's what James wrote: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one [point], he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10). What does this mean for Catholics who want to deny that eternal death comes upon all sinners, from the greatest to the least?

"'In whom, though now ye see Him not, ye believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;' into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that 'by grace ye are saved, not of works,' but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."

Which "church," Ed? The Church which is ruled over by the Pope in contradiction to the proclamation of Scripture regarding who is our High Priest?

Why are there differing opinions WITHIN the Catholic Church regarding the meaning and primacy of sacred tradition?

Scripture states that not all sin is unto death:

James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Sin when it is FINISHED brings forth death. There is the beginning of sin, but then there is the end. Example: one might look at pornography, which is a sin. But as all sexual addicts will tell you, it doesn't stop there. Sin has to "finish" with the addict, and lead him into deeper and deeper currents of sin. Finally, he is out committing adultery, which is a mortal sin. This is the idea of sin leading to death.

1 John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

"sin a sin which is not unto death Okay, your turn. What does that men if not that there are certain gradiants of sin, some not as serious as others and not all "unto death".

We may now turn to the apostle John. The incisiveness and decisiveness of John’s first epistle appear at no point more striking than where he, in terms peculiar to John himself, deals with the subject of our present interest. We think particularly of I John 3:6-9 in which the antithesis is most pronounced and might readily be interpreted as teaching sinless perfection. There are, however, several considerations which show that sinless perfection is not John’s meaning.

1. If John’s intent was to inculcate sinless perfection, then this passage would prove too much. In that event every regenerate person would be sinlessly perfect and only sinlessly perfect persons would be regenerate. The terms are that “every one who is begotten of God does not do sin . . . and he cannot sin because he is begotten of God” (I Jn. 3:9). On John’s own teaching sinless perfection is not the indispensable accompaniment of regeneration. In I John 2:1, John makes allowance for the incidence of sin in those whom he addresses as “little children” and directs us to the provision for this eventuality: “If any one sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous.” Again, it is difficult, to say the least, to interpret the words, “The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (I Jn. 1:7), as not reflecting on the continuously cleansing efficacy of the blood of Christ. If there is provision for sin in the believer, then regeneration does not insure sinless perfection.

2. John says expressly: “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (I Jn. 1:8). If John in this case were thinking of past sin only, we should wonder why he uses the present tense. For on the assumption of sinless perfection there would be no present sin, and the use of the present tense would be misleading and constitute for his readers something of a contradiction to what on the premises would be one of the leading theses of the epistle.

3. John insists that “it hath not yet been manifested what we shall be” (I Jn. 3:2). This is defined for us in the same verse as likeness to the Father, a conformity such as will be achieved when the children of God will see him as he is. Anything short of that conformity is not sinless perfection. But this is precisely the shortcoming John affirms — “It hath not yet been manifested.” This confirmity is the hope entertained and, because it is that hoped for, the outcome for the believer is self-purification after the pattern of the Father’s purity. “Every one who has this hope in him [i.e., the Father] purifieth himself even as he is pure” (I Jn. 3:3). Self-purification implies impurity that needs to be cleansed.

4. John implies that sin may be committed by a believing brother: “If any one see his brother sin a sin not unto death, he will ask, and he will give him life for those who sin not unto death” (I Jn. 5:16). This is incontestably a reference to sin committed by a believer.

Sinless perfection cannot, for these reasons, be the import of John 3:6-9; 5:18. What then does the decisive language of John mean? The usage of our Lord as reported by John in his Gospel provides us with an index to John’s intent in the first epistle.

In answer to the disciple’s question concerning the man born blind: “Who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” Jesus said: “Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him” (Jn. 9:2, 3). Jesus could not mean that the son and his parents were sinlessly perfect and had never sinned. The thought is simply that the blindness was not due to some specific sin for which the blindness had been inflicted as a punishment, the assumption underlying the disciples’ question.

In the sequel to the foregoing incident Jesus said to certain of the Pharisees: “If ye were blind, ye should not have sin; but now ye say we see; your sin remaineth” (Jn. 9:41). Again, sinless perfection cannot be in view in Jesus’ statement, “Ye should have no sin.” Jesus is thinking of the particular sin characteristic of the Pharisees, that of self-complacency and self-infatuation. From that sin they would he free if they were humble enough to acknowledge their blindness.

Finally in John’s Gospel, Jesus is reported to have said: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin. But now they have no cloak for their sin” (Jn. 15:22). Obviously, Jesus is speaking of the great sin of rejecting him and his Father (cf. Jn. 3:19).

Thus, in each instance, though the terms are absolute, some specific sin is in view, and the same principle must apply to the language of John with which we are concerned. Furthermore, in this epistle John himself gives us examples of the differentiation in terms of which we are to interpret his teaching. Whatever may be the sin unto death as distinguished from the sin not unto death (I Jn. 5:16, 17), there is undoubtedly radical differentiation in respect of character and consequence. It is the latter a believer is contemplated as committing but not the former. Since, according to 3:6-9; 5:18, the regenerate do not commit sin, it is surely justifiable to conclude that the sin he does not commit is the sin unto death.

In I John 4:2, 3 the apostle propounds the test of Christian faith. It is the confession that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. John’s antithetic incisiveness appears here again. “Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God.” The force of verse 3 is that every one that does not confess Jesus, in the identity defined in verse 2, does not confess Jesus at all. We must infer that the sin a regenerate person does not commit is the denial of Jesus as come in the flesh or indeed the failure to confess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh. Speaking positively, everyone begotten of God believes and confesses that Jesus as come in the flesh is the Christ (cf. I Jn. 5:1). This is the faith that overcomes the world, and this victory is the mark of every regenerate person (cf. I Jn. 5:4). The upshot of these propositions is simply that the believer confesses Jesus as come in the flesh, believes that this Jesus is the Christ and that he is the Son of God, and cannot apostatize from this faith. The believer is the one who has secured the victory over the world, is immune to the dominion of the evil one, and is no longer characterized by that which is of the world, “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (I Jn. 2:16). It is, therefore, in these terms that we are to interpret the sin that the person begotten of God does not commit and cannot commit.3

John’s language and patterns of thought differ from those of Paul, but the doctrine is to the same effect that for every believer in Jesus as the Christ and as the Son of God there is the decisive and irreversible breach with the world and with its defilement and power. And on the positive side, the characterization is no less significant of the radical differentiation from the realm of the wicked one. The person begotten of God does righteousness, loves and knows God, loves those who are begotten of God, and keeps the commandments of God (I Jn. 2:3-6, 29; 4:7, 20, 21; 5:2, 3).

But just so we are talking on the same wavelength, would you define for me how you believe that the Catholic Faith teaches "works salvation?" Thank you.

Canons on Justification from the Council of Trent:

Canon 4. If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Go back to Matthew 21: 33 - 46 and study the parable. There has only ever been one "eclessia" upon the earth. The same eclessia which was the Jewish nation in the Old Covenant is now the "new nation" (Gal. 6: 16) in the New Covenant which has been given the administration of the kingdom of God on earth.

The kingdom which has always been on earth is the temporal kingdom. It is to be replaced some day by the eternal kingdom. At that time, the office of the Holy Father will no longer be needed. The King will return and reign in person. In the meantime, He must have a prime minister who rules in His stead.

I can't understand why Protestants cannot grasp a simple fact of life: the OFFICIAL teaching of the Catholic Church both doctrinally and morally, is found in the Catechism. Those who disagree with it are REBELS!! What do you not understand about that? There is but ONE OFFICIAL BODY OF TEACHING! Anyone holding any different opinion is of a rebellious spirit and needs to repent.