Coffee Klatch

This morning during a Bible study that was looking at James 2, with regard to the concept of “faith without works is dead,” our Lutheran pastor made a comment about what was going on in the time of Martin Luther. He said that during Luther’s time the emphasis was heavily on the role of works in salvation. He said that they acknowledged the power of God for forgiving sins during redemption, but that one still had to work to take care of sins committed AFTERwards. That’s why they were big into indulgences and that’s why they invented Purgatory, so that people would spend hundreds or thousands of years there, working through the penalty for sins committed that Jesus didn’t save them from. And that’s if they didn’t keep sinning while they were there.

I found his statements disturbing and I decided right then to look into the teachings of the Church throughout history and find out just when Purgatory was “invented” and if it was possible to keep sinning there.

The first place I would look would be Scripture. Many Protestants today say that the only place in Scripture that the doctrine of Purgatory is referenced is in the Apocrypha, but you can’t discount that, because up to the time of the Reformation, the Apocrypha was considered part of the Old Testament.

This site gives us LOTS of references from the New Testament that talk about the concepts involved in Purgatory. Concepts like purification after death by fire and a place of suffering and forgiveness after death that’s not heaven. I won’t copy all the verses that are there, since they’ve already done the work. A few aren’t quoted, so you might want to visit BibleGateway to look them up. Some are indirect or symbolic, but others are more clear.

Looking at writings that exist from the first few centuries A.D., I’ve found several references (A.D. 160, 190, 202, 210, 216, 244) to praying for the dead, even dead believers, and descriptions of Christians being purified by fire for a time before entering Heaven. The Early Church Fathers on Purgatory presents an easy-to-read collection of quotes from Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and more.

Clearly this concept was not invented during the Reformation nor by Pope Gregory in the 8th century. There are way too many references to Purgatory by the third century. So was the idea of Purgatory invented? Is it traditional? What’s the purpose of Purgatory? I’d always thought of it as a place where you got punished for sins, but I’d always been taught that all of our sins are forgiven through Christ’s work on the cross and that that covers ALL of our sins, past and future.

The basic definition of Purgatory is a state for those who have died and are bound for Heaven, but cannot yet enter because they are not pure. That is, they “have unrepented venial sins, have not fully expiated their mortal and venial sins (i.e. received temporal punishment), and/or still have attachments to things in this world (through sin) that take them away from God.” Revelation 21:27 says that “nothing unclean will enter Heaven.” 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 talks about how Jesus has laid the foundation but then men build on that foundation through what they do in their lives. Fire will test the quality of each person’s works, and the quality things will survive the test. Verse 15 says “If it [what he has built] is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.”

So Purgatory is a place of cleansing on the way to an eternal destiny of joy in heaven. It’s not a place for people to get a second chance at salvation. But sin does have consequences, even when it’s forgiven. This is where Purgatory comes in.

“Christians have believed in the Purgatory from the earliest times, which can be seen in the writings of the early Church. There wasn’t any serious opposition to the doctrine until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century. The opposition is the result of a misunderstanding of what Purgatory really is.

Most Protestants would agree that unrepented sin cannot be brought into Heaven and that we must be sanctified before we enter it. This purification would occur instantly upon death. They have not given a name for this purification process, but Catholics call it Purgatory.”

We are also encouraged to pray for souls in Purgatory, that their stay be shortened and they be admitted to Heaven. Prayers for the dead are found throughout the Church Fathers, in all the Catholic liturgies by the 4th century, and even engraved on the tombs of Christians from the first few centuries.

For more information, including explanations, Scripture proofs, and history, visit Holy Souls Online or the Prayers for the Dead and Purgatory articles from The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Summary: Whether or not you believe in it, Purgatory has apparently been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. There is enough evidence from the first few centuries to prove that the early Christians believed in it and it wasn’t invented later on. The theory behind it seems sound enough when you just look at the references and take them at face value. I think that proof of it is found more in the traditional teaching of the Church than in Scripture alone. But at the very least, I’d have to say that my pastor was wrong about it.

[tags]purgatory, catholicism, religion, christianity, church history[/tags]

I grew up as a Baptist and had always been taught that Baptism was merely a symbolic act, identifying me as a member of the Body of Christ. After making a personal decision to be a believer and to follow Jesus, then you get baptized to make a public confession of your faith.

As I’ve been doing more study of the Early Church, I’ve been learning about what the Church taught during the first couple of centuries of Chrisitianity. (Note: It’s pretty outrageous to think that the vast majority of the Christian Church apostasized within one generation of the Apostles. That puts a lot of weight on what Church leaders had to say during that time, since many were still alive in the first century A.D. and actually learned about Christianity directly from the Apostles.)

Instead of reading everything from a baptistic point of view, which would probably consider this topic as heresy, I’ve tried to set aside any bias, apart from keeping a basic Christianity point of view. I WAS, in fact, taught to take Scripture at face value and to interpret it literally unless the passage was obviously figurative.

So here are some thoughts on Baptism, based on verses from Scripture:

Matthew 28:18-20 is a common passage to discuss this. “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”

This passage shows that baptism is supposed to be Trinitarian (invoking all three persons of the Trinity). It also shows rather plainly that making disciples involves people being baptized. “Make disciples” = “baptizing them” + “teaching them.” It’s right there in the text.

John 1:32-34 - “Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.” I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.’”

John the Baptist’s testimony is clear. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is also the one “who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.” It is obvious from the text that this is in contrast to John’s baptism, which is merely water.

John 3:5 - “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.’”

From what I’ve read, this not talking about two different births (as I was taught as a kid). Instead it’s two aspects of the new birth. It would be rather redundant to say that a person has to be physically born to enter the kingdom of God. Plus, it would be grammatically easy to make it sound like two different births (e.g., “born of water and born of the Spirit”). Jesus is instead combining water and the Spirit into one act, where water is combined with the Spirit in baptism.

What’s amazing in John 3 is that, in verse 22, we are told that Jesus went out and baptized. It’s the only place in the Bible we read of Jesus baptizing. And it’s right after this discussion of being “born of water and the Spirit.”

Acts 2:38 - “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

Be baptized “for the forgiveness of your sins”? That totally flies in the face of what I was taught about baptism, even though I was also taught to take the most obvious interpretation of Scripture.

Mark 16:16 - “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

Here again we read that being saved involves believing and being baptized. It’s also pretty clear.

Acts 22:16 - “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”

After his incident on the road to Damascus, Paul was visited by Ananias who, through the power of God, restored Paul’s sight. Then he tells him that the God of Abraham sent him to meet Paul and he tells him to “be baptized and wash his sins away.” That’s OBVIOUSLY more than just making a public profession of faith. It can’t get much clearer than this.

1 Corinthians 6:11 - “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Paul is talking to the Corinthians about their conversion here and again the obvious interpretation

is that they were washed, sanctified, and justified. Washing always seems to refer to baptism in the New Testament and Paul here says that the Corinthians were sanctified and justified when they were washed.

Ephesians 5:25-27 - “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.”

This passage (along with clearly stating that Christians are actually cleansed and made holy, not just left depraved and having that overlooked or whitewashed (”snow-covered dung hills”)) shows that when water is combined with the Word of God, the effect is cleansing and making holy.

Titus 3:5-7 - “He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.”

Again with the washing, which is linked to rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit. It’s still a matter of grace and mercy, not works, that we are saved, but obviously baptism is a key component because that’s how we are reborn and renewed.

1 Peter 3:21 - “And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

So the power of Christ’s resurrection is poured out in the water during baptism, which “now saves you.” I think this verse was always overlooked by any pastors I heard speak on the subject while I was growing up. It’s too conflicting with Baptist doctrines.

Okay, this was kind of a lengthy post, but most of it was Scripture passages. The overall picture is that there is a VERY STRONG Scriptural basis for saying that baptism is more than just a symbol that’s used to “publicly confess” a believer’s identification with Christ and His church.

I’m not putting any kind of ’spin’ on the Bible here. I’m quoting Scripture and letting it speak for itself. I think what I did growing up Baptist was what all good Baptists do: ignore these passages and pretend they don’t exist. Or at least that they don’t mean what they say.

One verse might be something that could be interpreted differently or questioned, but such a large number of verses from Scripture, with ABSOLUTELY NO verses telling us that baptism is merely a symbol, creates a weight of evidence which becomes a very convincing argument. I haven’t even gotten into what the early Christians said about it (even though it was practically unanimous for 1500 years). I’ve only looked in the Bible. And still it’s a very one-sided argument: According to the Bible, baptism is inextricably linked to salvation, redemption, and rebirth. It’s more than just a symbol. It is efficacious.

(For what it’s worth, this is what the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican churches have always taught. Many Presbyterian, Methodist, and Reformed churches teach that baptism is a “sign and seal” of membership in Christ’s covenant community and is equated with circumcision in the Old Testament, but not that grace is conferred through baptism.)

[tags]baptism, religion, Christianity, salvation, regeneration[/tags]

Postmodern philosophy is a point of view that says you cannot isolate binary opposites like knowledge & ignorance or presence & absence. Many people think of postmodernism as being relativistic, which it sort of is, unless you want to mince words. In that case, postmodernism is more about being open to truth or meaning from different sources, while relativism is more about getting rid of authority and meaning. For most, it’s probably a matter of semantics and postmodernism and relativism are seen as pretty much the same.

So I ask this question:

If postmodernism is saying there is more than one truth, that meaning is more subjective than objective, and more than one person can be right in holding different views of truth… isn’t that what many (most?) Bible studies are like?

People get together to read the Bible and discuss it, and they ask, “What does this mean to you?” or “How do you feel about this verse?” Since there is no real authority with regards to Bible interpretation, everyone is open to their own takes on it. Ostensibly under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but still coming to different conclusions. Sometimes quite opposite conclusions. And what does the Christian have to fall back on as an authority? Most will say that they would ask their pastor. But that’s not really any different from any other individual saying what the passage means, except that the pastor would probably have studied more. Then we just bump the question from differences between individuals’ interpretations up to the level of the seminaries and THEIR interpretations.

Many Christians champion the Bible as an objective source of truth, flying in the face of postmodernism, and yet when it comes to establishing the meaning of difficult passages, there IS no objective source of authority for interpreting it.

(Unless you go along with Catholicism’s view, saying that the Church has been the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) for the last 2,000 years.)

I’ve never heard any non-Catholic provide a good explanation or resolution for this issue. Most Protestants just accept that we can’t agree on everything and leave it at that. That makes me sad, because Jesus prayed that His Church would be brought to complete unity and I seem to remember that unity is to be a sign of the Church. But when we can’t agree on the meanings of Scripture, where’s the unity?

[tags]bible study, interpretation, postmodernism[/tags]

Humans are spiritual creatures. We are multi-faceted, true, yet there is more to our makeup than just our physical bodies. That’s accepted by practically everyone. There is also our mind. Most people accept that there is this mental element to ourselves that is not physical. There is a relationship between the two and the physical and mental elements can affect each other. And yet, that is not all that we consist of.

There is also a spiritual element to human beings. It’s the part of us that connects with other people on a level that mental and physical do not. It’s also the part of us that seeks for something higher–something more than just our limited view of existence. Some people call it the soul or the spirit, but it’s what separates us from animals. That and higher intelligence.

For humans to feel fulfilled in life, all there elements–body, mind, and spirit–must grow and develop. If any is neglected, the person suffers. Whether or not you feel there is a duty for spiritual development, you owe it to yourself to develop the spiritual side of yourself. Even if only to be growing as a “whole person.”

As Christians, I would go so far as to say that it is our duty, not only to learn the Bible and live as God would have us, but also to learn of our Christian heritage. My Christian upbringing was quite short on Church History. In fact, even after taking Bible classes at a Christian college, I didn’t really know much about Church History. All I learned through growing up in a Baptist church and going to a Baptist college was “this is what we believe.” Not a comparative study of what others believe while still calling themselves Christians. Just “here it is.” Sure, the Bible was used to back it up, but that could be done with quite a variety of beliefs. There was a Reformed college just a few miles down the road, but all I knew was that they didn’t believe what we did and they were wrong.

I sincerely believe that 90% of Christians are “floaters.” That is, they float along from week to week, not really thinking about what they believe or why they believe it. Instead, they just get spoon-fed by the preacher and learn “this is what we believe” enough to be able to parrot it back to others if needed. Floating along spiritually is just as unhealthy for a person as floating along mentally or physically. All three need to be challenged continually if we want to be healthy.

I’m just as guilty of being a “floater” as anyone else. I came to realize this a few years ago and I decided to do something about it. Instead of just floating along and going through the motions, I decided to learn about Church history. Growing up, I’d been taught that Catholicism was wrong (even NON-Christian), for instance, just like every other Christian denomination that didn’t believe what the conservative Baptists believed.

So I decided to do a study on my own. Throwing out all my preconceptions of what was “right” and what was “wrong,” setting aside the bias I had developed growing up in the GARBC, I started taking a look at the history of Christianity. What kind of church did Jesus leave? What did the early Christians (esp. 1st and 2nd cenutries) have to say about Christian doctrines and practices? It was obvious to me that there were some issues of doctrine and practice that were not specifically addressed in the Bible. Yes, the Bible touched on them, but not so clearly that it could be said, “This is how you are to do it.” Either that, or in modern times these doctrines had widely varying interpretations, all “based on the Bible.” Some of those topics included transsubstantiation (or the Real Presence in the Eucharist), baptism (purpose and method), and the role of actions (works) in redemption.

After a couple of years reading and praying and talking to other people (whose opinions I valued), I ended up switching from Baptist to Lutheran (Missouri Synod). Some of my blog posts relating to the switch are Liturgical Worship, Confession and Absolution, The Peace of a Clear Conscience, and Liturgical Continuity. I remember reading some of St. Augustine’s writings and seeing somewhere at that time that Lutheranism was very close to what Augustine believed, to the point of reading on some website that Lutheranism was what Catholicism should have been. I haven’t fully reconciled that perspective with everything Augustine had to say, which means more reading and discovering whether that’s true.

I’m not done with this spiritual journey, though. I’m still finding myself needing to become more familiar with the early Church and needing to answer some more questions about what they believed and practiced. The Internet is a VERY helpful tool for finding and collecting these early works, written almost 2,000 years ago. There’s so much to learn and discover about 2,000 years of Christianity.

But, then, the journey’s never really over, is it?

For the last five weeks, our pastor has been preaching on a passage from St. John, chapter 6, where Jesus fed 5,000 men (plus women and children) from five loaves and two fishes, and then later talked about being the Bread of Life.

Part of this is a passage that most Protestant preachers tend to skip over, focusing instead on the symbolic aspects or else ignoring it altogether in favor of the historical activities mentioned. I quote the passage below, in the New International Version that many people today tend to favor, partly because of that familiarity for many people and partly to show that this concept isn’t limited to just certain translations of the Bible. I’ve quoted excerpts, but you can click the link in the title to read the whole passage for yourself.

John 6:30-36, 48-61, 66-68
So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

“Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.” Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?” … From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Most Protestant denominations keep the Lord’s Supper only as a “feast of remembrance,” a memorial service that views the bread and wine as symbols of Christ’s body and blood–and only symbols–reminders of His sacrifice for us. That’s probably why this passage gives so many people such difficulty. If you just read what Jesus is saying here, you really have to twist His words to make His intentions merely symbolic.

Of course, there is the creative power of God’s Words, where He speaks and something is. “Let there be light” created light. “This is my body” is also viewed by many, including the Church Fathers, as being just such a statement, as St. Augustine said: “Christ held and carried Himself in His own hands.”

But aside from His institution of the Lord’s Supper, I want to focus on the passage in John 6. Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever” (vs 53-58).

It’s very hard to get a merely symbolic meaning out of that passage. How much clearer can He be than saying “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink?” It’s like He’s emphasizing the fact, particularly to say “this ISN’T just a symbol.”

If the listeners, in the context of the culture and times, understood this to mean that the bread and wine were only symbols of Jesus’ body and blood, why would they say, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Moreover, if His intentions were misunderstood, why didn’t He clarify? Throughout the Gospels, whenever Jesus taught something that wasn’t understood correctly, He would at least take His disciples aside and explain it to them. In this instance, He instead asked, “You do not want to leave me too, do you?”

The bottom line is verse 66: “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.” Given the context, it’s obvious that this large number of disciples left because of this issue. Too many people had a problem with what He was saying about His body and blood, and so they left Him.

I’d have to say that most Protestant groups (or non-Catholic groups if you want to mince words about definitions of “Protestant”) would take offense at this perspective. Or at least try to come up with reasons why it’s wrong. Much like how so many of Jesus’ disciples were offended and couldn’t accept His statements.

When in doubt, you have to go with the actual words spoken by Jesus. Questions of literal vs. symbolic intrepretations of Scripture are less relevant when Jesus clearly speaks in a literal sense. Or you can just choose to ignore sections of the Bible like this. Like I and many Protestants have done.

[tags]religion, eucharist, jesus, catholicism, protestantism[/tags]

Are Christians saved by faith alone? Are works a part of it? Does what you do matter or affect your salvation? Do your works produce salvation?

While there is quite a deal of controversy about this topic within the various branches of Christianity, I think it’s mostly a matter of semantics. If Christians from different denominations would open their ears and their minds a little, most would find that they’re saying the same thing. Just emphasizing different aspects of it.

First, here are some verses from Scripture that talk about the relationship between works and salvation:

Romans 4:2-5 - If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Galatians 2:16 - Know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Romans 9:30-32 - What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”

Ephesians 2:8-10 - It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works.

Matthew 16:27 - For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Romans 3:27-28 - Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

John 8:39 - Jesus said unto them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.”

1 John 2:3-4 - We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Titus 3:5-6 - He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior.

James 2:14-26 - What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Matthew 7:17-20 - Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Some people emphasize the need for faith apart from works, while other emphasize the need for works to prove out that faith. Most Christian denominations don’t advocate “getting saved” and then sitting on your butt until it’s time to go to Heaven. Instead, they say in various ways that the Christians needs to be active in the world, being “zealous for good works,” as the Bible says. The purposes include glorifying God, helping those around them, being God’s hand in ministering to others, and causing other Christians to glorify God. St. Paul called this “working out your salvation.”

Even the Catholic Church does not teach that works “save” in the way that Protestants view salvation, contrary to the hearsay that many Protestants believe. The Second Council of Orange stated that “If anyone says that … the beginning of faith … by which we arrive at the regeneration of holy baptism is not through the gift of grace, that is, … the Holy Spirit reforming our will … he is proved to be antagonistic to the doctrine of the Apostles.” Also, “If anyone affirms that without the illumination and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit … he can think anything good which pertains to the salvation of eternal life … or consent to salvation … he is deceived by the heretical spirit” (quoted from LumenGentleman Apologetics). They do teach that works can be meritorious (earning something), but that only by acknowledging that even the desire to do good works is a gift from God to the Christian. Works are seen as having value because they are acts of obedience. They are not the cause of initial justification, but are a result of it. You can read further explanation here.

So are works necessary for salvation? Yes and no. But I think we can agree as Christians that if someone claims to be a Christian and does not live a life of good works, his Christianity is questionable. “You will know them by their fruits.”

It seems to me that many of the differences between modern versions of Christianity are based on semantics. Instead of trying to understand what others believe (which is the logical thing, especially if you’re trying to convert them), many people become reactionary, claiming all kinds of horrible things about the other and repeating them to friends without even seeing if they’re really true.

On the surface, and sometimes even deeper, it DOES come down to a matter of semantics. Some people will emphasize “salvation by grace alone” while others will emphasize the need for works to demonstrate that salvation. Some will say “filled with the Spirit” while others say “infused with grace.” Some use “confirmation” while others use “believer’s baptism.” In many ways, these things are very similar, and it’s only when you come down to nuances that the separation occurs.

That’s not to say that there aren’t differences, because there assuredly are, but those differences tend to come down to questions of worship style, source of authority, and the conservative-liberal spectrum. The difference between Baptists and Methodists and Catholics (to pick a few) are minor compared with those between Christianity and Islam or Hinduism. I’m not saying we all just “need to get along,” because there are enough doctrinal differences at the core of the various Christian “franchises” that many couldn’t fellowship too closely or trade pastors on Sunday mornings. But still, maybe we could have more civil discussions instead of vicious attacks and retorts, which take things personally or twist words from their original intent or simply misunderstand meanings.

Here are some websites that present the differences from varying viewpoints. Some are long but all are worth the read.

Divisions Within Protestant Christianity
Report on Catholic-Baptist Relations
Fundamentalist or Catholic?
By Grace Alone: Misconceptions about the Catholic Church and Salvation
Differences Between Lutherans and Catholics
Similarities and Differences Between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic Churches
Why Baptist and not Methodist
What’s the Difference? A Comparison of Faiths Men Live By
Discovering Faiths: A Religious Directory
Articles on Denominations
Christian Gateway: Quick Facts
Many Mansions or One Way? The Crisis in Interfaith Dialogue
Wikipedia Article on Christianity

“My prayer is not for them [His disciples] alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” - John 17:20-23

A good friend of mine converted to Catholicism a few years ago. Before that conversion, and even more since, he has read and studied incredible amounts of material. You certainly couldn’t say he made his decision out of ignorance, and, in fact, he has become quite the apologist for the Catholic Church. He ended up creating a website (wittily entitled LumenGentleman Apologetics), containing well-written original essays on Scripture, liturgy, and culture.

Anyway, in a recent article he wrote, he made a very good point. What is a Protestant? How would you define Protestantism? It’s not just “Christianity,” because that would include Catholicism and some other denominations that aren’t technically Protestant. You also can’t really define it by what Protestants believe, because it’s either too narrow to encompass the vast diversity of all the various subgroups or else it’s just basic Christianity again. At the core, Protestantism has to be defined against Catholicism, since “protest” is the root of the name, and the issue is mostly concerning authority. Here is a snippet from his article. The article itself is primarily about Sedevacantism, just so you know the context.

When it comes to defining or identifying Protestantism, anyone with more than a passing familiarity with Protestantism can tell you that the particular dogmatic details are actually of secondary importance; Protestantism is not a system of belief, for there is no such system defined. They can’t agree on one. So what is a Protestant? The answer to that question can never begin with the words, “Someone who believes in …” Rather, the all-encompassing answer that accurately defines all Protestants is “someone who rejects the authority of the Church.” Better yet, the answer is “someone who elevates their own private judgment above the authority of the Church.”

A Protestant is someone who does, in fact, believe in an authority outside of themselves; they submit to Scripture, and to a certain extent, they submit to Sacred Tradition (as they understand it). In functional practice, they also submit to their pastor, or pastors. However, here is the key distinction: a Protestant submits only to his interpretation of Scripture; a Protestant only admits as a legitimate part of Sacred Tradition those things that he finds to be in harmony with the Faith; and a Protestant only submits to the pastor whom he has first judged worthy of submission. The moment that pastor steps outside of Joe Protestant’s dogmatic boundaries and refuses to be corrected, Joe withdraws his submission to his pastor’s authority, removes himself from communion with that pastor, and finds another leader whom he judges worthy of his submission.

Kind of makes you think, doesn’t it? Protestants cling to the role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation of Scripture, but that obviously can’t be the only source for proper interpretation. Otherwise we would see people unified about doctrines and the meanings of passages in the Bible, instead of (as we so often see) claiming a passage means something totally opposite from what another person says. It has to be more than just left to the individual. Most Protestants tend to ride along with what their pastor says, or sometimes with what their Council or Association or whatever says. How much authority is THERE, though, when different councils of churches believe things quite contrary from each other. It’s the same problem as with the individuals. Just on a larger scale.

Unless you fall back on the Church as the final Authority (meaning the Catholic Church), there is no solution this side of heaven. Protestants have to either regretfully say that it’s part of our fallen, sinful nature (and can’t be achieved) or else they have to reluctantly admit that the historical Church has held that position of authority and has protected the proper interpretations of Scripture. Either way, it kinda puts Protestants in an awkward postion.

That can lead to the question of whether Jesus, when He ascended to Heaven, would have left a Church without a solid source of authority. But that’s a question for another time.

Current music: The Best of David Benoit, 1987-1995

Today is the 230th birthday of our country. And despite all the complaints people may have about our society or our government or our leaders or our laws, we DO still have one of the best countries in the world and the most freedom. Of course, freedom requires limitations, even if self-limitations, because unconstrained “freedom” is basically anarchy.

The freedoms we have in the country we live in are truly a gift from God. Whether or not the most vocal people in our country agree, that doesn’t change the fact. And the only reason we’re as successful as we are today is because God has allowed it. Ultimately, HE is the one in control. Even when petty humans try to assert their will over His or his pridefully think that they are the ultimate decision makers. God is in control. Every time we break His law and are not annihilated is an evidence of His mercy. Every freedom we have is a blessing from God, as is the country we live in, a testimony to His grace.

In 1913, Katharine Lee Bates wrote the final version of her hymn America the Beautiful. I give you the song in its entirety. Take a minute on this national birthday to read through all the verses of this song and think about them a little, paying special attention to the activities of God listed throughout out the song and the patriot’s response to those activities.

America The Beautiful

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self the country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!

O beautiful for pilgrims feet,
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man’s avail
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!

Let’s take a look at our republic and the representative government we have, both in its beginnings and now. While most people would contend that the United States was founded on Christian principles, and some would even say that it was founded as a Christian nation, we do know that freedom of religion was a primary element of our nation’s founding.

I recently read the platform of a political party that advocates the U.S. being (or becoming) a specifically Christian nation. They still would allow and welcome others of different religions, keeping the freedom of religion element, but the government itself would be Christian, following Biblical principles, and all that. I think they believe that’s how our nation started and where we need to return to.

Then there’s the other side of the fence. A truly representative government means what? That everyone has a say in who the leaders are? Or is it more quota-like, where the percentages of society should be represented in government?

People tend to extrapolate various elements of the population onto such things as the workforce or percentages of company presidents and say that’s how it should be. If, say, 30% of a city’s population is black, then they feel that 30% of the presidents of the city’s businesses should be black. Same goes for gender. Does a representative government require that level of representation if it is to truly represent the people?

If that’s the case, does religion enter into it? If 20% of the U.S. is Muslim, does that mean that 20% of our governors or senators should be Muslim? Or is it just that whoever’s there has to speak for the people they represent?

There have been lots of debates about prayer at the beginnings of governmental meetings. Can Jesus Christ be mentioned? Christians generally say YES! And that it’s not just “can” but “should.” And yet we’ve become a very pluralistic society, with all kinds of religions being embraced by our people. Is there a place for compulsory prayer AT ALL in civic affairs? How can you force everyone to participate in (or at least endure) a prayer that is counter to their beliefs?

Christians, if the United States were 75% Islamic and only 10% Christian, how would YOU feel about Islamic prayers being offered at civic events? Most would probably cry out that it’s wrong because it’s not what they believe in and, if there’s truly freedom of religion, it should be more open.

Whether or not the U.S. began as a Christian nation, it certainly is not one now. Over the last 200 years we’ve welcomed people of all faiths, backgrounds, and nationalities. Since religion has not been part of government, the country’s been increasingly secularized as has the society. People can believe whatever they want and the government cannot force any belief system on them. So maybe, in that way, we don’t represent the people.

I’m not advocating any particular position here. I’m just raising some questions that I hope will make you think. Maybe even generate some feedback in the form of comments on this post.