Posted on 09/28/2005 4:44:24 PM PDT by NYer
How Old is Your Church?
This is a summary of a selected few denominations, churches, and religions and when they were founded.
If you are a Lutheran , your denomination was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.
If you belong to the Church of England, your denomination was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry. The Church of England separated itself from the Catholic Church under Henry VIII but it didn't actually become a new Protestant religion until the reign of his son, Edward VI.
If you are a Presbyterian, your denomination was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your denomination was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
If your are a Congregationalist, your denomination was originated by Robert Browne in Holland in 1582.
If you are a Methodist, your denomination was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are LDS or "Mormon" (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith Jr. started your religion in Fayette, NY, on April 6th, 1830.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your denomination to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your denomination in New York in 1628.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you consider yourself a member of one of the Pentecostal churches, your movement began in Topeka, KS (1901) and Los Angeles (1906), in reaction to perceived loss of evangelical fervor among Methodists and others.
If you call yourself a Mennonite, your movement was named after Menno Simons, a Catholic priest for 12 years, who left the Church to join the conservative Anabaptist wing.
The Amish, started by Jacob Amman around 1693, are just one of many different church bodies within the Mennonite community in the U.S.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene", "Pentecostal Gospel", "Holiness Church", "Pilgrim Holiness Church", "Jehovah's Witnesses ", your denomination is one of the many thousands of new sects and religions founded by men within the past several hundred years.
If you are a member of one of the Orthodox Eastern Churches your church separated from the Catholic Church in 1054 in the Eastern Schism. Although imperfect, the communion between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" (Pope Paul VI, quoted in CCC para 838).
If you are Jewish, Abraham became the first Jew when God promised him: "I will make you a great nation...". Your religion was founded by God in the Jewish calendar year 2049 (1711 BC), over 3700 years ago. God revealed Himself to the Jews through the Prophets and promised to send a Messiah. Jesus Christ, a Jew from the House of David, came to this world as His only begotten Son in fulfilment of the scriptures.
If you are Catholic, you know that your Church was founded in the year 33 A.D. by Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
I don't have a church. Catholicism cured me of that.
Amazing how obnoxious a Catholic can be when he feels a bit challenged.
Quickest way for a true conservative to get nasty flames on this site is to challenge a Catholic. Speaks well for their religion. NOT!
The nastiness of some of the Catholics on this site lets me know that just because you are a Catholic does not mean you are saved or follow the example of Christ.
BTW, ever check out the Catholic churches in South and Central America? They did a very nice job of mixing paganism, witchcraft, and idol worship with Catholocism (sp?). But I never hear anyone in the RC church speak out against that. Why not?
"It gives us the extra strength we need to butcher you in your sleep. Nighty-night."
The above is a sample of what Catholics on this forum say to those who dare challenge them. Clean up your own house before you lecture me on how I post.
Trent teaches Aminianism-not Semi-Pelagianism.
Arminianism-“That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself…think nothing that is good…such as saving faith is…. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through his Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding”
There is not a dimes worth of difference between what Trent states and what Arminianism states.
So Catholics aren't that bad after all!
I haven’t posted any articles saying the Pope is the Anti-Christ and the RCC is Babylonia, have I? Well, not yet. (Oh, just kidding.) It’s not my place to judge anyone. I simply comment on things the way I see them. That being said there are a few “hot button” issues with me (mostly with the Protestants). You’ll know when you’ve hit one. It’s generally when I rent my clothes, point my finger and shout, “Woe to you…”. This is not one of those issue.
The Catholic view on predestination are not defined. There are some in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas who believe in absolute predestination… On the other hand, Molinists take a different view.
That’s what the article by Hodges states. The Molinist were Semi-Peligians who had a different soteriology from the western church. They have now evolved into the Arminians of the RCC. The Church has not taken a stand on predestination because it impossible under a synergistic belief. You end up with “God foreknew those who would choose Him, so those are the people whom He chose.” This logic does not make any sense to me (frankly its plain stupid IMO).
Catholicism emphasizes the divinization of man by the infusion of God's grace, or the supernatural life, which enables us to actually become more like God...Nominalism (and Protestantism) does not believe this - but rather - that God imputes some sort of label on man, falsely calling man just. This external, legalist viewpoint is at odds with Catholic soteriology.
Infusion/imputed grace are a peripheral issue one that is often touted by the RCC as the cause of the Reformation. It was not and wasn’t what the Reformation was about. Luther’s “The Bondage of the Will”, considered by Luther to be his great work and argument, was about man being bound in sin incapable of making a decision. He argued against “free will” in his most historic document-not the infusion/imputed grace.
Calvinism harkened back to Augustine and Luther and expounded on the “synergistic/monergistic argements. The creeds from the Council of Trent (while there were a number of them) focus a great deal of its attention on man’s “free will” and his right to exercise that will. Finally Arminianism that rose in the Protestant church shortly after the Reformation through the 5-points of the Remonstrant, supported most of Trent’s creeds even though it was in direct conflict with what was being preached by the Reformers. The Reformers felt obligated to publish the 5-points of what has become know as the TULIP.
History clearly shows the issue of the Reformation was over the issue of free will versus God’s sovereign rights. The western church has simply left Augustine’s monergistic view in favor of synergistic view of the eastern church. If you doubt what I’m saying please remember this every time you read an article of the joining of the EO/RCC/Protestants. It’s all the same thing.
Blessings to you this Lord’s day.
The ignorance of your statement -- the failure to recognize that the poster used sarcasm -- demonstrates to me the inability of people like you to have an intelligent discussion of religion.
Of course, you likely know that I was double-predestined to make that observation. Did you leave the Catholic church by choice -- no, you did not...at least according to John Calvin's odd beliefs.
To be honest, my knowledge of Arminianism is lacking! So I cannot agree or disagree on your statement. What precisely do you find wrong with Trent? (Don't worry about Arminianism...)
This is not one of those issue ("hot button issue)
I agree. Even Catholicism, after 2000 years, has only set up some guidelines of what we CANNOT say, such as belief in so-called double predestination. But there is some flexibility on the issue of predestination in Catholic theology, as you have pointed out. The Councils, however, are clear to refute Semi-Pelagianism, and have a strong knack of keeping the tension of free will and God's foreknowledge in balance where one doesn't overwhelm the other.
You end up with “God foreknew those who would choose Him, so those are the people whom He chose.” This logic does not make any sense to me (frankly its plain stupid IMO).
Your knowledge on this is probably superior them mine on this issue, as it is a central issue for Calvinists. However, I don't see that foreknowledge automatically leads to foreordained. I can "know" that my kid, by overeating, will get sick, but I can choose to let him experience the consequences of the practice of gluttony. It doesn't infringe upon my "sovereignty" over my child. And the child's free will is maintained. This is what I meant earlier about an over-concern for God's sovereignty at expense of His love for His children.
He argued against “free will” in his most historic document-not the infusion/imputed grace
Free will WAS THE ISSUE of the Reformation. I agree. But when one denies that one can be infused with God's grace, or divinized, this, too, is a major issue, albeit not the prime one. It stems from the lack of free will. How can a man be infused with God-like qualities if man is totally depraved?
The Reformers felt obligated to publish the 5-points of what has become know as the TULIP
I'll have to read up more on TULIP. Some Catholic apologist, James Akin, I believe, claimed that Catholics could agree with TULIP with some adjustments. I'll have to re-read up on it.
History clearly shows the issue of the Reformation was over the issue of free will versus God’s sovereign rights. The western church has simply left Augustine’s monergistic view in favor of synergistic view of the eastern church. If you doubt what I’m saying please remember this every time you read an article of the joining of the EO/RCC/Protestants. It’s all the same thing.
I don't think the Protestant Reformation was over JUST free will and God's sovereignty, although it was the "hinge". I was under the impression that the Councils that followed Augustine agreed with his teachings - and that he DID teach free will and balanced it with his teachings of grace. The central theme of Augustine's writings, according to Albert C Outler, "...is the sovereign grace of God. Grace, for Augustine, is God's freedom to act without any external necessity whatsoever - to act in love beyond human understanding or control....Grace is God's unmerited love and favor, prevenient and occurent".
Augustinian views on nature and grace were authoritative for the Church. It has been rightly said that the Reformation has been interpreted as a movement in which the anti-Pelagian doctrines of Augustine about the necessity of grace were used to attack the anti-Donatist doctrines of Augustine about the mediation of grace. Even after the Reformation, Catholic thought was not settled, as Jansenism claimed to later be defending Augustine. What is ironic is that both sides were right and wrong! Thus, the need for balancing these two doctrines of the faith. Grace and free will. Their interaction will not be fully understood until we reach heaven, I believe.
Brother in Christ
I thought you claimed to be a Calvinist earlier, Erik. What's the deal? You're not pulling an Algore, are you?
And in which post did I make that claim? I can assure you I am not a Calvinist. I wouldn't know one even if I was standing right next to one.
I find Trent reflects the Arminian position of man’s free will. That is to say man must exercise some degree of control in their salvation. Consider the following:
Council of Orange: CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
If one is honest, there is no way to reconcile these two statements. Trent states that man’s free will must “consent” or “cooperate” with God. Orange states that there is nothing we can do, even humble ourselves or be obedient to God. Trent is synergistic in nature. Orange is monergistic in nature.
But when one denies that one can be infused with God's grace, or divinized, this, too, is a major issue, albeit not the prime one. It stems from the lack of free will. How can a man be infused with God-like qualities if man is totally depraved?
I’m not well verse in Catholic doctrine to give you a specific answer to your question. All I can say is that man must be born again and become a new creature in Christ. This is only accomplished through God’s grace and not by some “cooperating act” of the will that man does.
Totally depraved simply means that man will never choose those things of God. If it is righteous to eat chocolate ice cream then man will always choose vanilla. No one does what is righteous. God must change a person’s desire to want to eat chocolate ice cream.
God, likewise, must change a person’s desire to want to follow after righteousness. He doesn’t sit there and ask a question, “Do you want to follow the righteous path?” What do you think people will say even if they are infused with grace? Man still will want vanilla ice cream no matter how God shows chocolate to be better.
Trent, like other Arminian doctrine, is unclear. It suggests that God offers and entices the person with chocolate ice cream through His grace but it is still up to the individual to decide. This assumes there is something that God doesn’t change, man’s will, and begs the Augustine question, “What have you been given that is not from God?” Doesn’t God change the will of man so to desire chocolate ice cream? What will man select if this is so?
I'll have to read up more on TULIP. Some Catholic apologist, James Akin, I believe, claimed that Catholics could agree with TULIP with some adjustments.
I’ve found a number of people who believe with parts of the TULIP. Heck, not all Calvinists agree with “L”imited Atonement. The stumbling block is always over the doctrine of election (T, U, and I). It is in these areas you will find Augustine’s monergistic beliefs of election. Election is a doctrine most repugnant to Christians since it requires a tacit admission that man’s will is actually limited.
”I don't think the Protestant Reformation was over JUST free will and God's sovereignty, although it was the "hinge". I was under the impression that the Councils that followed Augustine agreed with his teachings - and that he DID teach free will and balanced it with his teachings of grace.”
I’d agree. I don’t think the Protestant Reformation was just over free will but it was the driving force. Luther and Calvin both agree that man has a will but it is bound. You are either a “slave to sin” or “alive to Christ”. I believe this is consistent with Augustine’s interpretation on man’s will. If YOU read Augustine’s “Treatise on Predestination” (not someone’s interpretation) you’ll find that he is pretty firm on the binding of man’s will. In fact in several places he calls it the “human will” rather than “free will” which is a term I like better.
The Council of Orange did follow Augustine’s teaching. It was gradual but around 1200AD the Church made a dramatic shifted to a humanistic synergistic view during the Renaissance with its focus on man. (Michelangelo is said to exclaim, “I will paint man in his glory”.) It isn’t surprising that much of the writings from the Church during this time are humanistic in nature. Many of the prominent scientists and inventors during the Renaissance were influential church members. The time was ripe for the RCC synergistic crowd to push forward their man centered beliefs and sweep away the Augustinian monergistic (God sovereign belief) crowd.
Luther could decide to accept the RCC Arminian (e.g. free will of man) or leave. Luther, as a true Augustinian, took the only approach he could take and I suspect a good number of other monergistic followers left as well (including Calvin). The Council of Trent was a slap to the monergistic followers and focused their creeds on man’s free will. This places it in sharp disagreement with the monergistic Council of Orange’s creeds. Sadly, Protestants shortly dismiss Luther/Calvin’s interpretation for Arminius’ synergistic view which places them squarely back on the synergistic crowd side.
There are only two religions in this world. (Please see my page)
BTW-It’s always righteous to eat chocolate ice cream. :O)
I disagree. If you look at the Council of Orange's definition, it says "...If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace,...". Thus, the two do agree in principle with each other - both state that we cannot come to God apart from Grace. This has been the teaching of the Church from the beginning. It refutes Semi-Pelagianism, and Trent continues in this line. ALL from grace - but this does not deny man's free will. The Scriptures are clear that we will be judged based on our deeds (as moved by God's grace).
Totally depraved simply means that man will never choose those things of God. If it is righteous to eat chocolate ice cream then man will always choose vanilla. No one does what is righteous. God must change a person’s desire to want to eat chocolate ice cream.
God, likewise, must change a person’s desire to want to follow after righteousness. He doesn’t sit there and ask a question, “Do you want to follow the righteous path?” What do you think people will say even if they are infused with grace? Man still will want vanilla ice cream no matter how God shows chocolate to be better.
You make a good point, but I still think that total depravity leads to a problem - that God is the author of sin. This is blasphemous. However, you have said one thing of merit - about our inability to do good without God. One Catholic theologian, Father Most, explained it very well. If I recall, he said that man could not make a positive decision to do God's will. All he could do was be neutral (to not shut the door). Following Phil 2:12,13 - it would be like this: God puts within us the desire to give a glass of water to someone. We CANNOT say "yes" at this point. We merely can be neutral or "no". If neutral, being open to God's prompting, God continues to move us to actually do it.
God did the good deed within us, if we did not REFUSE. Thus, God ALONE does the good deed in a sense. But by not refusing, we are somehow involved - we are then considered righteous in God's eyes - just like all of the people who are considered righteous in the Scriptures. They are not righteous because of their own deeds or positive decisions in a sense, but only by not giving in to evil - being neutral to God's work within us. I have found this formula more helpful and in line with what you say. It also keeps our free will intact while maintaining God's sovereignty. You can't get rid of the free will of man totally, as that has never been a teaching of Christianity or Scripture.
Luther could decide to accept the RCC Arminian (e.g. free will of man) or leave. Luther, as a true Augustinian, took the only approach he could take and I suspect a good number of other monergistic followers left as well (including Calvin). The Council of Trent was a slap to the monergistic followers and focused their creeds on man’s free will. This places it in sharp disagreement with the monergistic Council of Orange’s creeds.
There is a particular fatalism involved in Calvinism as he preached it. Although it is true that Augustine speaks of necessity, it is for a completely different reason - and they are always balanced with other statements with inverse truths. For example, on necessity, Augustine says to Pelagius "God, therefore, does not command what is impossible, but in commanding, He also admonishes you to do what you are able, and to ask His help for what you are unable to do" (On Nature and Grace, PL43, 50). I would like to point out that this is a similar reply that Melanchthon gave to Calvin regarding Calvin's attempt to place the cause of sin on God.
Calvin's system leads directly to "God's will", rather than "God's permission" as the ultimate cause of sin - an illogical statement. The moral absolute is that God is good and CANNOT cause sin. This overrides Calvin's view of predestination. Calvin misquotes Augustine out of context when Calvin says "the will of God is the necessity of things". This use to support his idea of man without free will is out of context because Augustine is not talking about the will, but of natural causes.
Augustine denied free will only when it was made a strength of man outside the grace of God - the very notion of free will for which Augustine condemned Pelagius, and continued at Trent. Unlike Augustine, Calvin did not see intrinsic grace cooperating with Adam to help him resist the fall. He understood Adam to have external graces outside of Adam. This idea, that God's graces do not change anything inside a man, is from Nominalism - the refuting of absolutes. Man and any attribute given to him (according to Nominalism) are not absolute, but accidental and subjective. THIS was the ultimate cause of the Reformation. When a Luther or a Calvin believes that man cannot be positively effected by God's Graces within himself (what we call infused grace, rather than imputed grace by Protestant definition), he naturally will believe that man CANNOT have free will. Thus, only some legal fiction can declare man righteous. The idea that man cannot respond to God's graces are false and not Scriptural. Otherwise, the call to repent, to turn to God, exhortations to obey the commandments, to believe and have faith, etc., would be pointless if man was only a puppet of God.
Brother in Christ
God is not the author of sin. God ordained the evil of the most unjust act in history to take place the crucifixion yet God cannot be blamed for what man did.
Nor would we have to conclude that the people who crucified our Lord were "puppets on a string".
What events exactly is God in control of and what is He not in control of? What does God know and what does He not know? What do you have that God did not give you?
Catholicism has not defined this particular part of the predestination discussion. Absolute predestination (Thomism) takes a different view than above. You are describing Molinarism. Trent and beyond never went that far, merely condemning Calvin/Luther's formula that man has no free will and stating emphatically, along with the Council of Orange, that man can do NOTHING to earn salvation, and that he cannot do ANYTHING without God's grace of any worth in terms of salvation.
Even Molina said "the freedom of the will must be preserved so that in all things the grace of the Giver stands out". For the prevenient grace of God and the free will of man are NOT antitheses, but are "two parts of a single integrated cause of the act of believing."
Banez said "the efficacy of divine aid, as it comes from the Holy Spirit, does not destroy liberty, but perfects it."
And finally, Bellarmine, opposing Pelagianism, insisted that all human labors were in vain unless God added His concurrent grace, for man "can do nothing for the sake of which God may be said to grant him grace". Catholicism has always been able to balance the two - free will with God's foreknowledge. I believe Calvin is wrong when he imposed absolute necessity onto predestination.
Again, God's foreknowledge does not automatically lead to His foredaining something. Your question, naturally, is one that Christianity has only partially solved with revelation from Scriptures and Apostolic teaching. The mystery of sin is profound - why does God allow sin? The Church has taught that God allows sin (but doesn't cause it) because He has judged that having free will is more important for a creature to have. The reason is that God desires a relationship of love with us. This is impossible without a free will decision to reject that love - and thus, sin has been allowed into the world. As you know, of course, sin has brought forth the greatest of Good. God did NOT ordain that, but foresaw that by sending His Son, the "vineyard tenants" would kill the son. The Scriptures, although prophesizing about Judas the betrayer, nevertheless consider him as being responsible for his actions. Since God sees time as one "NOW", He knows what our actions will be in advance.
What events exactly is God in control of and what is He not in control of? What does God know and what does He not know? What do you have that God did not give you?
God knows all, as He sees all of time as ONE NOW. As a result, His foreknowledge is supreme. We have nothing that God did not give us... "Lord, You will establish peace for us, for You have also done all our works in us." (Is 26:12). Scripture is clear that there is some sort of interaction between us and God - without God, we can do nothing good, but with God, all things are possible, as Jesus tells the Apostles, including man being saved. But God does not save man without man wanting to be saved. This is obvious from Scripture.
And a Catholic version of TULIP: T - Total inability (to please God without grace)
U - Unconditional election
L - Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)
I - Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)
P - Perseverance of the elect
This formula would be acceptable to Catholicism, according to "The Salvation Controversy" by James Akin, a former Calvinist who converted to Catholicism. It is an interesting chapter on TULIP.
Brother in Christ
You will not find the monergistic view in the RCC (or many Protestant churches) today. You may say you have various views in the RCC but they ALL come back to a synergistic belief - the belief that man must exercise his "free will".
Call it cooperation. Say God "influences" a person. It makes no difference. You are still ADDING something to God's work no matter how finely sliced this is. In the end, when every little thing is hashed out, man must choose God under the synergistic view. The simple fact that Trent used the term "cooperate" should be a clue. Man does not "cooperate" with God. God speaks. Man response.
The "I" that was so conspicuously replaced in the TULIP states that God's calling is irresistible. If God decides though His grace to call you do you actually think you can choose to resist God? Therefore everyone who is appointed to eternal life believes. Those who are not appointed will never believe.
God doesn't just "foreknow" the future. He directs the paths of men. Like the apostles, when our Lord Jesus calls men follow. They don't stand around trying to decide.
I will agree with you that cooperation is part of our belief in our response to God. How else can we respond if we are totally depraved? We can't come to God by ourselves, especially if depraved. Even our response itself is considered grace, as Augustine notes. I believe, however, that cooperation is part of Scripture's revelation on our relationship to God. We cannot be judged unless we have some responsibility in the matter. In our case, we are given unmerited grace, whether it is faith or the ability to do a work. We must, in some way, be able to call it ours, in union with God. Otherwise, what is God saving? Why is God "rewarding" some? Isn't the Scriptures clear that responsibility for our actions shines throughout them? If God's grace was irresistible, how could God say that we will be judged based on our works throughout the Bible?
Therefore everyone who is appointed to eternal life believes. Those who are not appointed will never believe.
That makes Scripture injunctions and exhortions regarding the Commandments a pointless waste of time. Why follow the Commandments if you are not saved? Why bother following the Commandments if you are saved REGARDLESS of what you do? I disagree that Grace is irrestible, and so did the Church. I am not aware of any Church Father that said that Grace was irrestible and that we could not reject it.
It seems that we are probably at an impasse. I suppose we will have to admit that we won't be able to agree on this issue. While Catholicism believes that grace moves us and that God has foreknowledge of our response, we never believed that we have no free will in the sense we are discussing. I do disagree with your idea of monergisticism vs synergisticism regarding Catholicism. By your definition, Catholicism was NEVER monergistic. Catholicism never did away with free will - even Augustine balanced it with God's foreknowledge. His definition of necessity and primary/secondary causes were misunderstood by Calvin, and remain so today. This has caused the problem of making the presumption that foreknowledge leads "necessarily" to foreordaining.
I do thank you for your conversation. I hope that we are both of the elect!
Brother in Christ
Can't complain about Protestants getting people saved when their own Catholic churches weren't doing the job. Most Protestants, myself included, don't care where some one worships God as long as they get saved and continue following Christ.
The scripture of choice was of course John 3:3, the "born-again" verse: "Jesus declared, 'I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.'
I never used John 3:3. Always use John 3:16. and then into Romans. It's more to the point.
We would make a hasty takeoff before reading John 3:5 which stresses the necessity of being "born of water and spirit."
Baptism is not necessary for salvation. (witness the thief on the cross. He was not baptised yet goes to heaven). Baptism is the first sign of obedience to Christ.
Catholics without a scriptural foundation for their Catholic beliefs
This is the problem here. Unless the Catholic Church starts teaching the bible (and I understand there is a far greater emphasis on this now in most churches) they will continue to have catholics who are not Catholic let alone Christian. Can't blame the Protestants for getting people saved.
For twenty centuries the Catholic Church has faithfully taught that salvation is by grace.
Huge surprise to me. I never heard of salvation by grace, or even the need for a personal relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior until I first attended a Protestant church (of course things may have changed since then)
James 2:24, where the idea of faith alone is explicitly refuted
Strongly disagree. James is stating that his works prove the existence of his faith. He is preaching against those who claim to be Christian but don't do anything Jesus told us to do.
Further:
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (KJV)
So if Ephesians says that salvation is specifically NOT of works and James talks about works we know that the interpretation of James to mean salvation by works must be incorrect else the bible lies. And we know the bible is true.
Now we know that the author running down the Catholic church was incorrect. On one hand the way he did it was not factually correct (Catholic doctrine has always been based on the bible whether that doctrine was actually taught by the leaders at various times) and on the other hand it is not efficient or effective. Telling someone they are going to hell just because they are Catholic (or Protestant) is not a good way to get them to hear what you are trying to say.
John 1:32 - when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.
John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).
John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.
John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus' baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.
Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.
Acts 10:47 - Peter says "can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people..?" The Bible always links water and baptism.
Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism.
Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.
Heb. 10:22 – the author is also writing about water baptism in this verse. “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Our bodies are washed with pure water in water baptism.
As for the thief, he repented while hanging from a cross. It was not possible to baptize him with water; that is what's known as baptism of desire.
Huge surprise to me. I never heard of salvation by grace, or even the need for a personal relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior until I first attended a Protestant church (of course things may have changed since then)
Neh. 13:14, Psalm 11:7,28:4, Isa. 3:10, 59:18, Jer. 25:14, 50:29, Ezek. 9:10, 11:21, 36:19, Hos. 4:9, 9:15, 12:2, Sir. 16:12,14 - The 2,000 year-old Catholic position on salvation is that we are saved by Jesus Christ and Him alone (cf. Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:5). But by the grace of Christ, we achieve the salvation God desires for us through perseverance in both faith and works. Many Protestants, on the other hand, believe that one just has to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior to be saved, and good works are not necessary (they just flow from those already saved). But these verses, and many others, teach us that our performance of good works is necessary for our salvation. Scripture also does not teach that good works distinguish those who are eternally saved from those who are not saved.
Sir. 35:19; Luke 23:41; John 3:19-21, Rom. 8:13, 2 Tim 4:14, Titus 3:8,14, Rev. 22:12 - these verses also teach us that we all will be judged by God according to our deeds. There is no distinction between the "saved" and the "unsaved."
1 Cor. 3:15 - if works are unnecessary for salvation as many Protestants believe, then why is a man saved (not just rewarded) through fire by a judgment of his works?
Matt. 7:1-3 - we are not judged just by faith, but actually how we judge others, and we get what we have given. Hence, we are judged according to how we responded to God's grace during our lives.
Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13 - Jesus taught that we must endure to the very end to be saved. If this is true, then how can Protestants believe in the erroneous teaching of "Once saved, always saved?" If salvation occurred at a specific point in time when we accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, there would be no need to endure to the end. We would already be saved.
Matt. 16:27 – Jesus says He will repay every man for what he has done (works).
Matt. 25:31-46 - Jesus' teaching on the separation of the sheep from the goats is based on the works that were done during their lives, not just on their acceptance of Christ as Savior. In fact, this teaching even demonstrates that those who are ultimately saved do not necessarily have to know Christ. Also, we don’t accept Christ; He accepts us. God first makes the decision to accept us before we could ever accept Him.
Matt. 25:40,45 - Jesus says "Whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did it to Me." We are judged and our eternal destiny is determined in accordance with our works.
Mark 10:21 - Jesus says sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. This means that our salvation depends upon our works.
Luke 12:43-48 - these verses teach us that we must act according to the Lord's will. We are judged based upon what we know and then do, not just upon what we know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.