Posted on 12/29/2002 5:38:32 AM PST by NYer
(Of all the more zealous conservatives in the nominally orthodox factions, the dispensationalists seem to have the poorest understanding of what a true conversion to Christ entails. For example, there should be no question whatsoever over the matter of embracing the Lordship of Christ as utterly crucial to salvation. The dispensationalists argue over this when it ought to be a completely settled matter.)
Understanding that all of the Bible is inspired, we only have to look to many other scripture verses where the doctrine of faith alone is specifically singled out as invalid. For example, you can refer to Eph 2:10, 1 Tim 6:18, Tit 2:7, Jas 2:14-26, Rev 2:5, 2:23, 2:26, 20:12 where works are identified as key to our salvation.
Finally, we can look to Matt 25:32-46 where our Lord Himself specifically identifies the necessity of performing good works. Those who perform good works during their lifetime will be saved; those who don't will not. Studying these scriptures with an open heart and an open mind can only lead us to the conclusion that faith AND good works are necessary for salvation; not simply faith alone.
A lot of groups don't understand conversion to Christ. So, they avoid it--and thereby conclude that they are converted.
As I pointed out in my very first post on this thread, I an persuaded, for several Scriptural reasons, that a number of ostensibly Reformed folks "have a name that they are alive and they are dead." Knowing the Lord for real is everything.
That, of course, is why I have argued so vigorously against premillennial eschatology. I am persuaded that it is a distracting error. It is not fatal in and of itself, but I am alarmed to see how much attention is paid to Larkin's impressive (?) charts of the endtimes--whereas the gospel itself is watered down very badly.
This my friend is not a judgement to salvation but a judgement to rewards...the goats were never sheep..a goat can not change its substance to be a sheep by good works..a sheep is a sheep and a goat is a goat...
These are works that flow from salvation not bring it
"Good works " can be sin...find that in the Bible cause it is there:>)
Momma, I'm continually struck by your seemingly insatiable need to condemn people to hell.
You do it on every thread, especially where Catholics are involved.
You can't seem to restrain yourself, for whatever reason.
Condemning people serves no purpose, other than to contrast them with yourself, of course. In addition, you have no authority or charism which allows you to sit in judgement of the souls of other men.
It's very unseemly, Momma, especially coming from an otherwise good person such as yourself.
I find the question odd. The answer, for Calvinists, is easy. Because that's God's will. It seems that Catholics would have a harder time with it.
I remember a church service I went to while at Calvin, in the Wealthy Street Baptist Temple (fundamentalist). I had never heard such faith and conviction, such joy in the music, such love of Jesus. I needed to focus my aroused love of God on an object. But God is invisible, and we are not angels. There was no religious object in the church. It was a bare, Protestant church; images were "idols." I suddenly understood why Protestants were so subjectivistic: their love of God had no visible object to focus it. The living water welling up from within had no material riverbed, no shores, to direct its flow to the far divine sea. It rushed back upon itself and became a pool of froth.
He has, accidently, made the case for a bare, Protestant church. Focusing your love of God on an object is idolatry. When the Israelites felt they needed an object to focus on, they built the calf. Later they chose Moses' brass serpent.
I was impressed by the argument that "the Church wrote the Bible:" Christianity was preached by the Church before the New Testament was written-that is simply a historical fact. It is also a fact that the apostles wrote the New Testament and the Church canonized it, deciding which books were divinely inspired. I knew, from logic and common sense, that a cause can never be less than its effect. You can't give what you don't have. If the Church has no divine inspiration and no infallibility, no divine authority, then neither can the New Testament. Protestantism logically entails Modernism. I had to be either a Catholic or a Modernist. That decided it; that was like saying I had to be either a patriot or a traitor.
The argument flips on itself in two ways. First, if you understand the cause humanly, as the men involved, then how much greater must the writers be than the transmiters or preservers? They didn't just carry it forward, but actually themselves wrote the words on the page. But Paul himself said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Second, if Catholic tradition is the source of Catholic respect for the Bible, the source of this respect is higher than the thing respected, then we must also say there's a Protestant tradition, including respect for the Bible, and that it must be higher in authority than Scriptures also.
So let me pose the question directly. Why is it that 90% of Catholics do not understand justification by faith?
Interesting read, thanks for the ping. BTW, I'm Jewish, not Protestant Christian. From my perspective, its ya'll who are the protestants. ;o)
and Catholics will teach Protestants to dance and sculpt.
Hopefully not "liturgical" dance. ;o)
just as Jesus made a claim about His identity that forces us into one of only two camps, His enemies or His worshippers, those who call Him liar and those who call Him Lord
I've read this claim of Kreeft's before (following Lewis's argument), and find it to be a false dichotomy. Most of what Jesus taught is perfectly compatible with Jewish teaching. I have much more disagreement with Paul than I do with Jesus. What the "liar vs. lord" tandem fails to take into account is the possibility of human error. Now, for someone who is already a committed Christian, this is inconceivable. But for a non-Christian, it seems eminently reasonable that Jesus was mistaken about his messiahhood, that his disciples misunderstood him (something they were constantly doing), that what was first meant figuratively only later came to be taken literally, that the gospel accounts contain a large amount of hagiography, and reflect an evolving understanding of the nature of Jesus, etc.
Hahn and those like him chose theology as a career. They spend their life searching the wisdom of man. What better place than the Catholic church for this kind of non-calling? Go where the money is. Hahn wouldn't recognise the Holy Spirit if he came up and bit him on the back side.
Hahn reminds me of the song lyrics: I've been to Seminary but never to Calvary.
You call Hahn and those like him as having "probing minds". Spiritually bankrupt would better fit.
You asked earlier why no response from the prots. I can't speak for all but, all these catholic posts seem to be the same old tired arguments in different wrappings. Always putting the teachings of Rome against the Bible. It gets old real quick. I've been here 2 months and already I'm sick of it.
Your "well thought out" posts serve as something to read when the News/activism forum is slow, nothing more
What century was the book written?
I believe the author left something out, the Catholic believes he is saved by faith, by grace, by Christ and the Church.
It is the Council of Trent that cast curses on anyone who thought differently.
The fundamental difference between the Catholic view and the non-Catholic view is the issue of Sola Scriptura as well as the Canon itself.(Apocrypha books)
Some Romanists will say that they too teach justification by grace—by Christ’s righteousness, in fact. But the righteousness of Christ which they claim justifies is not Christ’s own personal righteousness reckoned or credited or given or imputed to believers.
Romanists refer to the righteousness which Christ works into the life of the believer or infuses into him in his own living and behavior.
It is not Christ’s personal righteousness but the believer’s personal righteousness, which he performs by the grace of God. It is Christ’s righteousness versus the believer’s own righteousness. It is Christ’s achievement versus the Christian’s achievement.
It is an imputed righteousness not an infused righteousness. It is a gift of God versus an accomplishment of man. These two righteousnesses are as different as righteousnesses could conceivable be. It does come down to the way it has been popularly stated for the last four and a half centuries:
Protestantism’s salvation by faith versus Rome’s salvation by works...The Protestant trusts Christ to save him and the Catholic trusts Christ to help him save himself.
It is faith versus works. Or, as the Spirit of God puts it in Romans 4:16 (NIV), ‘Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace, and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring.’ It is ‘by faith so that it may be by grace...’
If a Romanist wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. ‘The promise comes by faith so that it may be by grace.’ You can’t be saved ‘sola gratia’ except ‘sola fide.’...
We agree with Roman friends—salvation is by grace. That is the reason it must be by faith. If it is a salvation based on works that come from grace, it is not based on grace but on the Christian’s works that come from grace.
The works that come from grace must prove grace but they cannot be grace. They may come from, be derivative of, a consequence of, but they cannot be identified with it.
Faith is merely union with Christ who is our righteousness, our grace, our salvation. 1 Corinthians 1:30, ‘It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus who has become for us wisdom from God,’ that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption. Christ is our righteousness.
Our righteousness does not result from His righteousness, it is His righteousness (Justification by Faith Alone, Don Kistler, Ed. (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), John Gerstner, The Nature of Justifying Faith, pp. 111–113).
Works are a result of salvation, never the cause of it. (Isa.64:6, Eph.2:9)
Now, for the purpose of clarity, what works are you discussing?
It wouldn't be the Sacraments would it?
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.