Skip to comments.In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Does he? Paul says he has a personal testimony of Christ. He also say that some things he wrote are his own and not the commandments of the Lord.
While his pinging me provides numerous opportunities to ignore him at times I have to laugh out loud
cyc, I am glad it pleases you to think you are ignore me (although you are not). I am pinging you only out of courtesy, according to the RF rules.
Very profound. What else can one say but question when someone claims to see and "understand" things they are apparently unable prove, describe or explain?
e: “I thought the whole point of Catholic chauvinism was its unity.”
m: “Room for individuality is its strength, dontchaknow?”
Yes I do. That is called a ‘denomination.’
I will just skip on down. The net result must be that the Roman Catholic Church:
1. claims authority based upon the Bible,
2. of which parts may not even be the Word of God, but
3. which it alone is capable of interpreting.
I am not sure why you mention the Roman Catholic Church, but since you mentioned it, the RCC claims authority based on the Bible (which the members of the Church wrote and chose), and the Apostolic tradition, reorganizing that not everything the early Church believed is written in the Bible. The interpretation is based on the collective interpretations of the early Christian apologists who wrote in the cultural and linguistic milieu that produced the Bible.
The Protestants base their interpretation on literal reading of the Bible translations (most of them faulty or doctrinally "doctored"), and in the cultural milieu far removed from anything even close to the linguistic or cultural atmosphere and values of the 1st century Middle Eastindividually as the "church of one", and as each man or woman his or her own pope (and magisterium).
As for its treatment of various parts of the Bible, the Catholic is based on the Gospels (not on Paul, as some claim), and the Gospels are the only scripture sitting on the altar. When Pauline Epistles are read, it is read by laymen, and the congregation sits. When the Gospels are read, they are read by ordained individuals (deacons, priests, bishops), and the congregation stands.
Despite the RCC's lip service (forced by the Reformation)that all scripture is "God's word", the Catholic Church (both east and west) doesn't treat all parts of the scriptures equally.
Well sure. That changes everything.
Kosta, by your own admission, you’re not even sure God exists. Previous posts of yours indicate a disbelief in Scripture and its authenticity and validity and inspiration.
Two points result from that.
One is that since you appear to have rejected it as a point of authority or even of fact, you have disqualified yourself from speaking authoritatively on it.
The other is that esquirette ought to know your postitions on Scripture and God.
esquirette, you are correct in your assessment of what the Catholic church does concerning Scripture. The RC church is trying to lay claim as the only way to God with these assertions. Since the average lay person is (according to the Catholic church) incapable of interpreting Scripture correctly himself, as evidenced by kosta’s assertions here as well, then of necessity, it claims that since it is responsible for the Bible, it is the only entity which can properly interpret it.
Of course, the fact that almost 2,000 years have passed between the men who consolidated Scripture into one convenient, easy to access resource, and the men now who claim authority to be the ones to *correctly* interpret it, is rather irrelevant in Catholic’s eyes.
Despite the RCC's lip service (forced by the Reformation)that all scripture is "God's word", the Catholic Church (both east and west) doesn't treat all parts of the scriptures equally.
However, this part we have seen as true, even on these threads.
INDEED. WELL PUT.
FK: What other reason could they have possibly had for immediately wanting to stone Him than for claiming to BE God?
How many times do you believe the words of Jesus were misunderstood, even by the Apostles?
The Apostles misunderstood Jesus several times, such as when He spoke of the Temple being destroyed and built again in three days. However, in every such example I can think of the context shows us this plainly. In the case of Jesus' claim of being "I AM" there is no indication whatsoever that the listeners were misunderstanding. Further evidence would be that Jesus said nothing to correct them. Why would Jesus not have corrected them and stopped them from trying to kill Him if He didn't really mean to be making the claim?
Just two chapters later we have this:
I would think that given this golden opportunity to clear the air by clarifying that He was not claiming to be God He would have taken it. Instead, He does nothing of the sort, claims to be God again, and they try to stone Him again.
To support the idea that He was indeed claiming to be God we have the positive evidence of the OT reference, plus the reaction of the unbelieving Jews wanting to stone Him for blasphemy, plus other NT scripture showing that Jesus did not attempt to repair any misunderstanding. To support the idea that Jesus was not claiming to be God, but that the Jews misunderstood we have no evidence whatsoever from the context and have to make a baseless assumption.
The views of the “Holy Fathers” are informative to Orthodoxy?
They being who, “Tertullian, John of Damascus, etc.?
They being who, Tertullian, John of Damascus, etc.?"
Yes, the writings of The Fathers will tell you quite a bit about Orthodoxy but you must understand two things about the Fathers, first, none of them are infallible, they all can err, some more than others and second, what you want to look for is the consensus among them. Now, +John of Damascus is certainly one of those we call a " Holy and God bearing Father". Tertullian, on the other hand, is considered something of a father in the West, I suppose. We remember him for his heresy.
Many people claim that God exists and even to know God, but their descriptions of who or what that God differ like night and day. Even those who supposedly believe in the same God seem to have difficulty agreeing on this, as is blatantly obvious from discussions seen on this Forum.
However, that doesn't stop them from claiming that their version of their God is the only right and truthful version, although they have nothing to prove it with except by saying that it's true because they say so! That's a very weak argument, dear mom, pathetically weak.
Why should I believe any group, or an individual, based on such feeble if not childish "evidence".
Previous posts of yours indicate a disbelief in Scripture and its authenticity and validity and inspiration.
But, mom, different religious groups indicate disbelief in the validity of the scriptures of others! Warring faction even within the same group of believers use the same "scriptures" to prove their rivals wrong! There are as many interpretations of the "scriptures" as there are believers, or so it seems! So, why should I believe your version?
Two points result form that. One is that since you appear to have rejected it as a point of authority or even of fact, you have disqualified yourself from speaking authoritatively on it.
I have rejected it because I don't know which group to believe, and because all indicators are that, while various scriptures, Jewish, Christian, LDS, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc.while claiming "revelation"all appear to be man-made, and full of holes, copyist interventions, interpolations, etc.
As for my "disqualification," you may wish to rethink this conclusion, dear mom, because frankly it comes across as something rather asinine, imo. According to your logic, we could say that, since you rejected the Roman Catholic Church, you have "disqualified" yourself from authoritatively disputing anything Catholic! But the fact is that you continue to dispute, even dismiss Roman Catholic theology, doctrines and beliefs, as if you are qualified to do so!
Since when does one have to believe something to authoritatively speak on the subject? The authority comes from the knowledge of the subject, and how much knowledge one has is not determined by how much one believes in it.
The impetus was the distinction you drew in 5286 between the Church as a "visible entity" and the same Church in the Creed, where, you think, it is not so described.
Thus while works of the law are disallowed as salvific, Rome attributes salvific merit to works of faith
First, thank you for a thoughtful response. It is cogent posts like this that make my participation in this thread a joy.
Yes, that is a correct summary. Works done in obedience of law (Jewish or otherwise) or for social gain (e.g. "to boast", Eph.2:9), or for wages, do not count toward salvation, even though they can contribute to it indirectly by avoiding sin in cases where sin is also a crime. Works of faith otherwise known as works of love or works of charity, often referred to by the Scripture as "good works" have a direct salvific effect.
You are introducing a contrast Paul is not making, which is clearly not that of disallowing works done out of a certain motive or quality versus works of faith, but the contrast is works meriting justification, that believers have "truly merited eternal life," versus righteousness being imputed by faith. The argument we have is not that faith must be of a kind that works, but that works (nor faith) do not merit eternal life. Rather, justification is by imputed righteousness Christ works being the effective cause procured through a kind of God-given faith that will bring forth fruit unto practical holiness.
As for boasting, if believers are accounted to have "truly merited eternal life" by those very works which have been done in God, then it is a wage, even if by grace, and even those works done under the law work are by grace, and they who are under that system work by faith that God will justify them on account of their merits. But as in election, if justification is through faith by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Rm. 11:6) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rm. 4:4,5)
However, apart from eternal life, which is a wholly unmerited gift, (Rm. 6:23) works done in faith do have a reward, (Mt. 10:41; 1Cor. 3:14; 9:17) and in contrast to salvation, Paul could boast of what he had done, in seeking to turn the Corinthians back to faith, (2Cor. 11:10) and declare how he laboured more abundantly than the other apostles out of love for God, by the grace of God which was with him. (1Cor. 15:10)
other texts do not specify works of the law, but broadly refers to works, which it sets in contrast to faith
let us see what examples you cite.
... simply says that the law is just and good, I don't see any reference to works in general here. It is our presumption that a law is always aiming at something good, or at forbidding something bad, is it not?
Here law in its pedagogical value is contrasted to faith. I don't see good works being contrasted to faith.
Your editing of my response loses the argument. What i said in context was,
Thus while works of the law are disallowed as salvific, Rome attributes salvific merit to works of faith. This implies that the reason for the use of the term works of the law in such places as Romans 4 is to place such in contrast to works of faith. However, other texts do not specify works of the law, but broadly refers to works, which it sets in contrast to faith. And the law being holy just and good, (Rm. 7:12) if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law, (Gal. 3:21) while the righteousness of the law is never abrogated. (Rm. 8:4)
The argument goes on (below) to provide examples, while Rm. 7:12 and Gal. 3:21 are obviously not referenced as contrasting works versus grace but they are used to argue that if there was a way to merit eternal life by works then it would have been by the law, in which one has faith that God will justify him on account of his works-righteousness. The often-used term works of the law in Paul's teaching is clearly NOT to disallow works of the law in contrast to works of faith as regards to the instrumental means of justification, but to contrast works versus grace through faith. I went on to ref Titus 3:5 and 2Tim. 1:9 in that regard, to which Eph. 2:9,10 can be added, which do not mention works of the law, but which contrast you misconstrue.
while the righteousness of the law is never abrogated. (Rm. 8:4)
Indeed, see my comment above. The work of the law are not salvific, that is one obeying the law simply because it is law may be avoiding certain sins, but other than that he is not advancing his sanctification and therefore is not advancing his salvation. He simply does, like the unfaithful servant, "what is required of him" (Luke 17:7-10).
The ref to righteousness of the law not being abrogated follows the above point as to the quality of the law, and again the argument by Paul is not one type of works versus another; rather he indiscriminately disallows works of righteousness as the basis for justification, in contrast to establishing that faith is counted for righteousness, though it must be a kind of faith that works, which it is elsewhere qualified as being.
I do not see an example of "other texts do not specify works of the law, but broadly refers to works, which it sets in contrast to faith" anywhere here.
The next paragraph was part of the argument and gave two examples.
The key difference as I see it between this and what Catholicism teaches is that it is not by any merit of works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, (Titus 3:5) not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. (2Tim. 1:9)
How is that not what Catholicism teaches?
Because Rome teaches that the good works that he performs by the grace truly merit the attainment of eternal life itself, (Trent, Canon 32) that eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits, (Trent, Chapter XVI; The fruits of justification, that is, the merit of good works, and the nature of that merit) that believers have truly merited eternal life by those very works which have been done in God, (ibid, Decree on justification), Thus you must attempt to restrict works of righteousness not of works, not according to our works, and to him that worketh not, to only applying to a certain kind of works, contrasting that with works of faith, while the Biblical contrast is broadly between works of any kind versus faith as the instrumental means of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ.
Christ did not indeed [need to go] to to the Cross because we were righteous or law-abiding. He did so because He is God and God loves us and all He creates.
Christ did not got the cross simply because He is loving, but because He is holy and just, and man is utterly unable to merit eternal life with Him or escape his just and eternal damnation in Hell-fire, and thus the need for the atonement. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. " (Romans 3:25-26)
None of that negates the need for us to love God back, and indeed "faith without works is dead" (James 2:17-26), and we must "excel in good works" (Titus 3:8, the same passage that reiterates that "works of justice do not save us" (one you cite, verse 5).
That is not the issue. As has been established, the classic Protestant doctrine of sola fide preaches that the kind of faith that is salvific is one that shows forth things which accompany salvation, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) Not because they merit it, but because that is the character of saving faith, the issue being that a soul is justified by imputed righteousness upon believing, with a faith that will follow the One whose justified them by His blood and righteousness.
You also cite 2Tim. 1:9 and, of course there, as well, the same thought is expressed: that while God saved us and, in that case, gave some of us the calling of episcopacy, "according to his own purpose and grace", we must have a response: "labour with the gospel, according to the power of God" and "stir up the grace of God which is in [us]", "[in the] spirit of power, and of love, and of sobriety" (2 Tim 1:6-9).
You left out, Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, as what is at issue is that salvation is not according to our works, but by pure grace, not grace to merit salvation, but that one is justified by imputed righteousness through a kind of faith that confesses Jesus is Lord.
So no, I do not see a prooftext of faith and good works being "either one or the other".
As concerns what the basis for justification is, that should be obvious.
Each passage you cite affirms the Catholic teaching: The sovereign purpose of God is love for us; works of the law (or works of justice) do not have a salvific merit; works of faith or good works done in the spirit of love are a necessary part of our response to grace.
To which you should have said, and which merit eternal life. as that is Rome's false gospel, upon which a vast system is built. Each passage i cite does not affirm Catholic teaching that believers are accounted to have "truly merited eternal life" by those very works which have been done in God, but again they deny that any work except that of the Lord Jesus Christ atones for sin and merits salvation, and is appropriated by faith.
All of them. There are sincere believers among the Protestants, but as theological movement it is all a fraud perpetrated by Luther, Calvin, Knox, et al.
"By works faith [is] made perfect" (James 2:22).
Or by works faith perfected. (byG1537 worksG2041 was faithG4102 made perfect?G5048) An inert type faith is dead. How that by works a man is justified, (Ja. 2:24) is that it is not by a kind of faith which is alone but one which is confession in nature. In Rm. 4, Paul is dealing with what exactly the basis for justification is, and clearly states that it is not by works of righteousness, to him that worketh not but believeth,by grace through faith, not of works, and thus Abraham was justified by faith in Gn. 15:6.
Yet as regards the nature of saving faith, Paul himself states, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rm. 10:9,10) Thus it is a confessional type faith that is salvific. And this confession can be by mouth as well as by body language such as in baptism.
But what if the person is mute, and immobilized, and all he/she can do is think? Thus we have the belief in baptism by desire, and if that can be the case, then justification does not require an actual acting out to be appropriated, though a work may be the occasion when faith is realized, yet if one is justified in heart then it will be expressed when able, and so a salvific faith is one that will work. To refuse to do so, or to willfully act contrary to it, is a denial of faith. (Mt. 10:32; 1Tim. 5:8; 2Tim. 2:12,13)
As for James, he is dealing with souls who suppose that a kind of faith is salvific which professes Jesus is Lord but does not evidence it, yet has Abraham's justification being in Gn. 22, which would be a contradiction of both Moses and Paul if he meant that Abraham was not a saved soul until he was willing to offer up Isaac. It is thus typically concluded that this act justified Abraham as one justified, confirming the virile nature of his faith, fulfilling it as true. More on this below.
However, even if we understand James teaching that Abraham's justification did not actually occur until Gn. 22, so that Gn. 15:6 was more like a promise and not a present reality, and thus justification does not occur until such an expression of faith as Abraham or Rahab made, which understanding i see as the only other alternative, yet what James does not say is that such works of faith merit eternal life, and or that the latter was any kind of deserved reward for his works , which Rome renders them to be.
your statement cannot necessarily say is that Protestant theology leads one to eternal damnation
Man can be sanctified by the diligent study of the scripture, and therefore can be saved. what your statement implies is that Catholicism manifests a greater degree of grace, which is her stance, while the multitudes of those who left Catholicism for Evangelical churches (which has far more been the case than the opposite), testifies otherwise
Souls are not saved on the basis of their own holiness, but faith which is imputed for righteousness, but faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rm. 10:17)
Indeed. The fullness of faith is inthe Catholic faith.
That is not what what i said, but that the evidence shows a poorer spirituality among Roman Catholics than evangelicals, despite the general declension of faith overall in the West.
As I stated many times, one who seriously and attentively studies the Hoyl Scripture will perhaps not become a Roman Rite Catholic ..and perhaps he would..rather join an Eastern Orthodox Church. But even in becoming Orthodox rather than formally Catholic he will embrace the Catholic theology and most congenial to him Catholic praxis.
This would admit that a modern day Berean would likely not become an Roman Catholic, yet they supposedly have the fullness of the faith, and which claim relies rests upon their own infallible self-proclamation.
What do the numbers of conversions mean? Not much. In 4c the Christendom was overwhelmingly Arian.
My statement was in reference to Rome's assertion that Catholicism manifests a greater degree of grace, but based on what research i have, converts to evangelical churches most typically usually do not primarily site doctrinal issues, but relational, with 90% of former Roman Catholics saying it was a spiritual search for a more direct, personal experience with God was the main reason that brought their conversion.
And as most first realized this relationship due to a personal conversion as a result of conviction and faith in Christ to save them as lost sinners, rather than being treated as Christians due to their infant baptism(typically), their faith is far less centered on a particular church than one their relationship with Christ, and they find fellowship that transcends denomination with those who had the same conversion.
I went to many Evangleical Churches with my formerly Evangelical wife, and while theologically it looked deeply flawed, and liturgically insignificant, I agree that the Evangelicals as people are a very nice people and often seem to be touched by genuine grace. I also see how a quintessentuially Evangelical experience of misanthropic self-effacing "me, filthy rags", followed by the bolt of lightning proclamation "I have been saved!" -- be transformational.
Well, thanks for the kind words, but it would be wrong to impugn the transformational misanthropic self-effacing "me, filthy rags", followed by the bolt of lightning proclamation "I have been saved!" type conversion, as it is entirely Biblical. The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit, (Ps. 34:18) and so the misanthropic self-effacing penitent publican went down to his house justified, (Lk. 18:14) versus the religious who supposed he was all set due to his works. Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips (Is. 6:5) cried Isaiah the prophet when He saw the Lord Jesus (Is. 6:10; cf. Jn. 12:39-41) in His glory, before his lips were purged. And the Ethiopian eunuch went on his way rejoicing, not at the possibility of being saved but at being redeemed (though faith must continue), and 1Jn 5:13 provides for assurance of possessing eternal life based upon examination of its description of saving faith.
The preaching of the gospel is to effect conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment, (Jn. 16:8) and thus Peter charged the Jews with being culpable for the death of the risen Jesus Christ the righteous, and warned they would be made His footstool, which resulted in their desperate cry, Men, brethren, what shall we do? (Acts 2:14-37)
There simply is no Christianity without this deep realization of need, and man must often be made to face the fact that he is a sinner destitute of any merit whereby he may escape his just eternal punishment and gain eternal life with God, and if he wants to be saved from his sins, and wants light over darkness, then must abase himself as a sinner, helpless to save himself, and cast all his faith on the mercy of God in Christ, relying on the Biblical Lord Jesus, the Son of God, to save him by His blood and righteousness.
But what you not find is souls being treated as if they were Christians due to infant baptism and perfunctory professions, which prevail in institutionalized religion of any camp, while Paul was persuaded that a third generation believer (2Tim. 1:4) was such due to his evidential faith, and who as child had known the holy scriptures, which are able to make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2Tim. 3:15)
I also agree that if one talks to a regular Evengelical about his faith in matters of immediate importance to him, -- moral life, etc., -- A Catholic will not find anything to argue about.
I did not infer they would, as available evidence shows that the typical Catholic is politically and morally less conservative and more liberal.
The Evangelical distinctives: the total depravity of man, the irresistibility of grace, the limited atonement -- are all, to a Catholic mind, some kind of German philosophical voodoo, that is far from the Gospel and makes little sense, but luckily is not something anyone can really practice.
Total depravity of man and limited atonement are not uniformly held; while Calvinism and classic Arminianism both hold to TD, it may vary somewhat in definition. As for limited atonement, that is a minority view within evangelicalism, being restricted to most Calvinists, and in my opinion, it is not warranted. As for the first being to a Catholic mind some kind of German philosophical voodoo, that may be the case now, but that man is dead in sins and morally evil and cannot do good except by God's grace has far more Scriptural warrant than teachings such as praying to saints, indulgences and the Treasury of merit, etc. and the assuredly infallible magisterium, with the former depending upon the latter, and which depends upon itself.
And we are very much about practice.
What is meant bywe? For all its boasting of works, those Rome counts as members come in last or close thereto among denominations as concerns marks of commitment. And while you have constantly misrepresented Protestant as being opposed to works, if there is any group that between the two at issue that is very much about practice it more evangelicals.
So far, no Evengelical Church taught its flock to do bad works,.
Broadly speaking, but if such includes things like the practice of using carnal force over people for religious purposes, as in the Inquisitions, some early ones did, but they learned it from Rome.
although I think that that three-car-garage-prosperity gospel guy comes close
This is true, supposing gain is Godliness, as was selling indulgences, while the Roman Catholic church today gets money (not required but expected) to have masses said to alleviate poor souls in her mythical purgatory, while partly funding herself by gambling.
The issue is what perfection means, and its attainment.
Yes, it is. See the Church is here as a hand of God. The Catholics do not think they are saved by being nice people anymore that Protestants do. It is by that hand, to which I bow every Sunday, that hand that holds Him and puts Him in my mouth that I am saved. I want that for everybody. So, read the Holy Scripture adn remember Who gave it to you, -- and reach the right conclusion, please.
So you bow to the church and it puts Jesus in your mouth, and by which you are saved? Holding the church to be a material means of salvation is one thing; holding that taking part in the Lord's supper is necessary to have life in you, which many RC's erroneously suppose Jn. 6:53 means, is another. The way born again believers live by eating Jesus flesh is the same way Jesus lived, as He explained it: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (Jn. 6:57) Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (Jn. 4:34) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life (Jn. 6:63) ..It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Mt. 4:4) Thy words were found, and I did eat them;. (Jer. 15:16)
As shown here, Only by ignoring John's and the Bibles use of allegorical language, among other things, can one sustain that kosher apostles knowingly and unquestioning consumed Jesus body and drinking His blood at the last supper. And it was not the Lord's supper which they preached as the means to have life, but believing the gospel of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ.
Yes, I think it is possible to distinguish currents in Protestantism, where some believe in fact in the same salvific role of good works as Catholics do, but somehow combine that with the slogan of “faith alone”. The reason I allow myself a generalization is first, because I simply cannot presume the position of arguing for one Protestant comunity against another Protestant community. To me, as Catholic, they are all to differing degrees heretical. Secondly, the cornerstone of that heresy is Luther’s ideas of the supposed dichotomy between the law and the gospel which then allowed him to formulate “faith alone”. I think that all Protestant communities of faith are infected by that fundamental error. How they reconcile that with the obvious calls for sanctity and repentance thoughout the gospel is a certain art where each Protestant is his own pope, thus generating the ever-splitting Protestant theological movement. But the error is common to all.
According to this, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and every mass murderer was doing the will of God since their wills are "completely subjugated to His free will" as you are saying.
In one sense, sure. It's like asking if those who nailed Jesus to the cross were doing the will of God. If you don't say "yes", then do you say that man's will triumphed over God's and therefore Jesus was crucified? I would never say that Jesus was crucified because man's will was stronger than God's.
count-your-change: No. The decision was made by God and He so informed the church of His decision
The Catholic Church generally operates by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in that matter and any other. So why do you object to my "the Church abolished these restrictions"? What is it exactly you are saying No to?
We are told that those who die in Christ are not really dead. It stands to reason, therefore, that they have as much right to vote as anyone else!
Yeah, but if they died in Christ then how do you explain that 95% of the "dead vote" goes to Democrats? :)
You know that how, exactly? We just saw that in Acts 15 the Church, guided by God, abolished the kashrut. What makes you think the same Church cannot abolish also prohibition on eating blood?
So on judgment day, what do you do about your sin?
I, incidentally, don't agree with that. The accusation of the Jews was indeed collective, but it was utterly grave: "let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified" (Acts 2:36). The sermon then calls them not to simply declare Jesus as Lord and Savior -- after the Evangelical fashion -- but rather "Do penance [or if you wish, "repent"], and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins". Further, this echoes the words of St. John the Baptist, but the kind of penance he called for is not in any way "basic" or matter of "recognizing" the lordship of Christ. Rather, he wore a hairshirt, fasted and was a celibate hermit,-- the harshest forms of penance known to us.
I am not familiar with the acronym in this context, what does it mean?
while it has its share, Catholicism has its equivalent
The difference is that there are not two Catholicisms. There are liberal Catholics. On the other hand, the Protestant communities that would categorically separate faith from works, exist and they are full-fledged self-sustained communities, independent from those who, like yourself, de facto take a Catholic position on inseparability of faith and good works.
And the faithful preacher exhorts works in the same order as the Bible doctrinally does, after establishing the means to salvation and the state the believer has as a result, and with the motive to glorify God.
See, that part is still not biblical. There are some passages where sanctification is given in a certain order, and the person obtains the gift of faith first, then is driven to good works, then his faith matures, and "makes sure his calling and election (2 Peter 1:2-10 comes to mind, or Philippians 2:12-13). That would be Catholic teaching. But this sharp distinction that one is saved on faith alone and then proceeds in good works, not to "make sure" the salvation, but solely in order to glorify God, -- is not in any scripture that I am familiar with. At best you are inferring that from passages that also allow for Catholic interpretation, whereby salvation, justification and sanctification are aspects of a single process rather than consecutive stages.
That is news to me. On this thread alone, I am sure I can find more than once a spin on James 2:17-26 that would revolve on exactly that idea, that works follow proper faith. If it now looks to you like a caricature on Protestant exegesis, maybe you should revise your basic theology.
It is very good, on the othor hand, that Protestant pastors preach what the Bible teaches. One day they will all be Catholic then.
A hearty AMEN!
” We just saw that in Acts 15 the Church, guided by God, abolished the kashrut.”
Actually..No. The Law (with its dietary restrictions) was fulfilled with Christ’s death as he said he came not to abolish but to fulfill and did so.
What took place in Acts 15 was a decision made with authority of the apostles behind it and recorded in the Scriptures.
What is recorded at Acts 15:21 is the ‘bare bones’ principles of the Law that that Gentiles were bound by upon becoming Christians.
The Scriptures note no removal of the prohibitions. In fact the restriction on eating blood was a age old one that the apostles and older men simply continued guided by holy spirit.
And here I thought you were an "expert" in Biblical traditions. Can't know everything, I guess. Raising of hands in praise to God is an ancient practice, in fact the OT Jews made it a tradition and I can only assume God received the genuine show of praise they meant since he never forbid it. See the following for examples:
And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.
I honestly believe that we should do so unapologetically. God desires the "sacrifice of praise".
There was no capitalization in Greek or any other language till much later. I capitalize “Catholic” for the same reason I capitalize “Protestant”, (or “Paleolibertarian”) because they refer to a particular system of thought to which many people exclusively belong, and that is how standard American English operates.
There is a modern idea that “catholic” means “universal” and “Catholic” means “Papist”. As you might imagine, I disagree: I never heard of “catholic joint” or “catholic remote”, and all historical references to “catholic” match “Papist” just fine. So I don’t think there ever is a real reason to not capitalize “Catholic”.
One delicate case is “Are the Eastern Orthodox Catholic or catholic”? That is the ony context in which perhaps, it makes sense to use “catholic” to indicate their peculiar status as conformant to Catholic theology but not in the formal union with the Pope of Rome. But I still would use “Catholic”, because I don’t like word games that cannot be backtranslated in Patristic Greek.
See my previous post on this subject.
St. Ignatius did not merely say that “Catholic Church is where the bishop is”. He also wrote about the centrality of the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. My point is never that St. Ignatius was Catholic as opposed to Orthodox, — in general there is nothing in Eastern Orthodox Churches that is not Catholic in doctrine, — but that he was Catholic as opposed to Protestant.
I would agree with this statement to the extent that God did indeed grant some sovereignty to man in relation to other creations. Without reference to anything Kolo said, man's sovereignty is limited and man's will never supersedes God's.
Deuteronomy 30:14 states that we can do what is necessary to be saved (although Paul chooses to misquote it in Romans 10:8).
In my translation I don't see any conflict in word or intent:
Paul's correct starting point is that it is God Who gives us our faith and that by faith we are saved. He goes on to say "10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.". Paul is very clear in his teachings that this Christian heart is not something that we earn through works or because we are "good" enough. No, Paul teaches that faith is an unmerited gift from God.
FK: Our free will is completely subjugated to His free will
Does that include Satan's will as well? Is Satan merely doing God's will?
satan's will is certainly subjugated to God's, as we see at the beginning of Job. But I think whether we should characterize satan as "doing God's will" is a matter of semantics. In one sense "yes" because nothing can overrule God's will and everything that God wills, happens. In another sense, "no" because of course God hates all sin and is the author of none of it.
FK: Whenever different, His will overrides ours every time
So, then, we are to give praise and thanks to God for every Holocaust-like event because it was his will??? You've got to be kidding, FK! How many other Protestants share this "core belief" of yours?
Naturally if we took the time to give individual thanks for all that is due God, then that is all we would be doing every waking minute. So, Christians understandably focus on giving thanks for those things that are easily understood. But of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't give thanks for what is painful. Paul gives us a perfect example:
As far as other Protestants, I don't know how many would agree with the way I am expressing these ideas, but I know that every Reformer would agree with my sentiments that nothing trumps the will of God, and that whatever God wills is done.
And those who will not [be with God in eternal life] are those who did not have faith (because he didn't give it to them specifically so that they may be "lost"!) and for that they will spend eternity in hell, punished for sins they had to commit, all for the pleasure and glory of this God!
Absolutely, couldn't have said it better myself! Isn't it glorious? :)
FK: Ultimately, the creation of every person will bring glory to God, but that will manifest itself in very different ways.
And since all do his will (because, remember, he overrides theirs if it is different form his), some are destined to do evil and some are destined to do good; no matter how you turn it around it is still God's doing (or overriding), FK, be it good or evil. Is this another Protestant "core belief"?
I still disagree that everything is God's "doing" just because He wills it. For God to get what He wants, many many times He simply does nothing at all. I don't consider that the same as "doing". Now, if evil was a part of the plan and God "injected" evil into a person thus forcing the desired result then you would be right. But I say it doesn't work like that. We produce all the evil all on our lonesome.
From your statement it looks like the general topic you are raising is predestination. If so, then as far as being a Protestant core belief goes I would say not, since I think it is closely related to the heart of the disagreement between Reformers and Arminians.
10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
Once a person commits one sin, they are condemned. they need FORGIVENESS. Works could only save if someone kept the Law perfectly their entire life; only if they never sinned.
Since that is not possible, forgiveness must be granted. That's an act of mercy on the part of the forgiver, not what is due to the sinner for other good works racked up to his account.
Salvation is a gift given out of mercy. You don't work to earn a gift or earn mercy. If you earned it, it wouldn't be mercy, it would be wages.
John 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
These are the words of Jesus Himself. And yet Catholics as a whole, deny them when they claim that some other *works of faith* or some such nonsense, is what gets you into heaven.
There is no teaching anywhere in Scripture, certainly none from Jesus, where we are instructed to adopt a new set of works to get us into heaven.
No you didn't. You showed me verses where faith is praised and leads to salvation. You also showed me verses where grace is said to be not of works. But theae are all Catholic doctrine, and none of these teaches that faith alone is salvific. If you think you showed me somethign other than what is the general description above, find that post and then kindly find my response to that post, and if that does nto work, get back to me.
Our works are a by-product of the changed heart of flesh that was once stone, the new nature versus the old sin nature
Just recently (see my 6,378 responding to Gamecock's 5700) Gamecock infored me that "no one claims that good works automatically follows faith". Apparently boatbums did not get the memo.
If works are a by-product of faith, why does the Bible exhort to them, including Titus 3 that you incompletely and incorrectly cite:
 Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers, to obey at a word, to be ready to every good work.  To speak evil of no man, not to be litigious, but gentle: shewing all mildness towards all men.  For we ourselves also were some time unwise, incredulous, erring, slaves to divers desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.  But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared:  Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;  Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour:  That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting.  It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they, who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
if you choose to do your good works out of your own strength to ensure your salvation, then you are rejecting the grace of God
This just makes no sense. I choose to do good works because the Bible tell me I will not be saved otherwise (Matthew 25:31-46). Also, it is precisely because "His blood pays for sin, completely" that my works can sanctify my by the sovereign operation of His grace. If there had been no Cross, there would have been no "laver of regeneration" and no "faith that worketh in charity" (Gal 5:6), and no "good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10).
Show us the Greek word for penance and where it shows up in Scripture.
Repentance is in the Bible a lot. But God never commanded us to do penance. That’s another example of deliberate mistranslation by the Catholic church in order to support its heretical doctrine of works based salvation.
And of course, the Catholic church just happens to be the one to be able to dictate which works can save and to dish out penance for people to do to earn God’s forgiveness.
Scare tactics? Is that all you have?
We decide on them, and generally do our part, but "it is God that is working in us" (Phil. 2:12-13).
Also, note the illogicality in your question. The works of the law (i.e. getting oneself circumcized, or respecting other people's property) are ordained by God, but it is us who are dong the works. Likewise, the works of love (i.e. feeding the poor or explaining the Gospel) are ordained by God and it is us who are doing them. So your syllogism is in grammatical form only.
What makes us think the former is nto salvific but the latter is? The Holy Scripture that you ignored.
God says to Noah here, after the Flood.....
Genesis 9:3-5 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
The prohibition against eating blood predates the Law.
Yes, it was reiterated again in the Law and was a sin. Whoever ate blood was to be cut off from his people (Israel).
But the eating of blood restriction goes back as far as possible.
So, even if the *church fathers* were able to pass judgment and officially rescind the obligation to keep the Law, since its was only purpose was to lead us to Christ to begin with, they had no authority to rescind the prohibition against eating blood, which was given outside the Law.
I am reminded again of the conversation I had with a parish priest over breakfast. The subject of favorite Scripture verses came up. I said mine was Ephesians 2:8,9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
“Hmmm”, he replied, “That sounds Protestant to me.”
No lie, those were his exact words and it showed me that God's word read in context means what it says. We have no excuse for not understanding the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Boatbums: why you call grace through faith "drivel".
I don't call the relevant passage of Ephesians 2 drivel because it is the Gospel taught by the Catholic Church. I called the false Protestant doctrine of Faith Alone (note capitalization indicating a known to the reader phenomenon of thought) drivel. It is not drivel? Then where is it in the Bible? Or you got yourselves your one tradition from someplace? It is not the first time that I ask.
By our free will we choose to do these works, we assent to the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit to purify and mature our faith
Yes, exactly. This is why Faith Alone is empty drivel, because in the end a thinking Protestant himself would deny it.
From the next post, very similar: The role of the evangelist is to lead people to saving faith in Jesus Christ and then to direct them to a fellowship of believers for instructions in living the full life of a Christian.
Once again, if "living the full life of a Christian" is necessary for salvation, then you have denied Faith Alone, and if that is not necessary for salvation then why instruct anyone in what is not going to save them?
Further, it may be how an Evangelical pastor views his mandate, but it is not biblical. This is what Christ instructed the Church to which, you say, you somewhat majically belong:
teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
The Church is sent to teach observance of "all things commadned", and baptize. Sounds like teaching works, and celebrating sacraments to me.
I answered that a few minutes ago and if you did not see the answer, it is a few posts of mine above.
How are they different? In either case you have an end result that is clean. The difference is in the moment of the cleaning, but that is not indicated in the scripture you cite.
Or perhaps one day you will understand that they already WERE members of the "universal" body of Christ. Hopefully, you will be, too.
Where did you get that? The Early Church (pre-Constantine) was far less centralized than the Roman Catholic Church is today, for reasons of being underground for most of its early life and the logisticsl impossibility of robust communication. These were local Churches in obedience to their bishops, and most important Churches were not even the Church in Rome. But they were all Catholic Chruches because they believed the same thing; when one or more Churches deviated in anything doctrinal, an apostle would write the letter to fix the problem, and after the passing on of the Apostles, a figure of inherited apostolic authority would do the correcting, or a Church Council would be held. This was nothing like the Protestant system os self-appointed pastors and divergent doctrines.
how is it that you can enjoy the liberty in Christ of practices of minor theological importance, yet deny that same liberty to others who are in Christ every much as you?
Again, where is it that I denied you following whatever practice you have? The problem the Protestants have -- all of them, whether they recognize it or not -- is that they do not obey the scripture because of the error that unites, them, the false doctrines of Faith Alone and Bible Alone. That I deny you because it is error and endangers your salvation gravely. That on top of that you are doctrinally diverse is merely a testimony to the absence of divine leadership, but you surely have the freedom to follow your consceinces, at least in the political sense.