Ask A Protestant

[stoplooklisten]

I think the main reason I’m not Catholic is because I believe that the Roman Catholic Church offers a partially works-based gospel and salvation experience. From what I’ve understood, there’s almost no way to really have assurance of going to heaven apart from doing good things, going to confession when you make mistakes, attending mass regularly, having faith in God, and hopefully having your sins being purged out in purgatory. That may not be what you personally believe, but that’s what I understood Catholicism to be as a Catholic for roughly 16 years.

Thank you for sharing that.

 

[stoplooklisten]

"The angels will go out and separate the wicked from among the just.” (Matt. 13:49.)

Notice that is doesn’t say that angels will separate the believers from the unbelievers but rather the just from the unjust. And, how do we know that we have genuine, saving faith and aren’t fooling ourselves?

Almighty God cares about an infused righteousness that’s worked out and lived out. A forensic, legal, (name removed by moderator)uted, external righteousness is something other and something less. A faith without works is a dead faith and not a living faith. Jesus: If you love me, you will keep my commandments. Paul: Faith working by love (Galatians 5:6) Saving faith must reside in the heart (and is more than a “head game”) (Romans 10:9-10). Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 7:19) Everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined. (Matthew 7:26-27).

“And these are the ones sown on rocky ground who, when they hear the word, receive it at once with joy. But they have no root; they last only for a time. Then when tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away.” (Mk 4:16–17). How do you know that you won’t fall away?

 

[gazelam]

I believe that people are saved as soon as they genuinely put their trust in Jesus as their savior.

How deep does one’s understanding of Jesus need to be in order to be saved? If someone with genuine trust in Jesus later in life comes to a non-Trinitarian conclusion that, say, Jesus is subordinate to the Father, is that person still saved?

 

[stoplooklisten]

Work out your salvation in fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12)

[To the Church at Laodicea]…because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth (Revelation 3 ).

You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved, (Matthew 10:22). - Are you ready to endure?

Remember God’s severity as well as his goodness: his severity to those who fell, and his goodness to you as long as you persevere in it; if not, you too will be cut off. (Romans 11:22) - How do you know that you won’t be cut off?

 

[stoplooklisten]

We do believe in free will from what I’ve understood over my years of being a Baptist.

Then, you would be free with your will to commit mortal sin (as Judas did) and separate yourself off from Almighty God and saving graces.

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. (CCC 1035).

Don’t you agree that your free will means that you have freedom to make choices and the responsibility to walk in faith and faithfulness and to love back the God who created you and loves you and sustains you day by day?

 

[JonNC]

His purpose was to support his own doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Source. Where did he say this?
In his open letter, he explains in detail his reasoning for his translation.

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [ klar und gewaltiglich ], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.
Inn diesen reden allen / obs gleich die Lateinische oder Griechische sprache nicht thut / so thuts doch die Deudsche / und ist ihr art / das sie das wort (Allein) hinzu setzt / auff das / das wort (nicht odder kein) deste völliger und deutlicher sey / Den wiewol ich auch sage / Der Bawer bringt korn und kein gelt / So laut doch das wort (kein gelt) nicht so völlig und deutlich / als wenn ich sage / Der Bawer bringt allein korn und kein gelt / und hilfft hie das wort (Allein) dem wort (kein) so viel / das es eine völlige Deudsche klare rede wird / denn man mus nicht die buchstaben inn der Lateinischen sprachen fragen / wie man sol Deudsch reden / wie diese Esel thun / Sondern man mus die mutter ihm hause / die kinder auff der gassen / den gemeinen man auff dem marckt drümb fragen / und den selbigen auff das maul sehen / wie sie reden / und darnach dolmetschen / so verstehen sie es denn / und mercken / das man Deudsch mit ihn redet. In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words " kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

Continued

 

[JonNC]

If having “alone” in the text is intended to change the meaning, it would appear in “Protestant” English Bibles. It doesn’t. Not in a single one that I’m aware of. Why? Because English is not German. It is not needed in English.

Since the Epistle of James conflicts with that doctrine too, he proposed to omit James too.

Source. Where did he say this?

In his preface, he starts with:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

He praises it, though later he criticizes it, but I have bolded a key phrase, that he repeats in one form or another through his commentaries: he is giving his opinion, not claiming any authority. I have seen no quotes of his where he calls for it being omitted.

Maccabees he left out because it supports the doctrine of purgatory which he had decided doesn’t exist.

I assume you are talking about 2 Maccabees. Source for both accusations, please. I’ve read his commentary on 2 Macc and that is not the reason he gives. As for Purgatory, it is best to read recent Lutheran/Catholic dialogue on the topic.
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...ous/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

 

[stoplooklisten]

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. … Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them. - Matthew 7

Have you noticed that Jesus said that you will know the true from the false by their good fruit (and not by their credible profession of faith)?

 

[Maximian]

It is explicitly in the Bible

(A) In Genesis, chaper 1

God is the Father Who creates
The Spirit who moved over the face of the waters and
The Word which God spoke

(B) John Chapter one identifies the Word with Jesus

(C) In Matthew 28 Jesus enjoins baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If you mean that the word “Trinity” was not used till later that is perfectly correct. But the fact of God’s Trinitarian nature is made plain in scripture.

I assume you are not Catholic?

 

[adf417]

It is explicitly in the Bible

(A) In Genesis, chaper 1

God is the Father Who creates
The Spirit who moved over the face of the waters and
The Word which God spoke

(B) John Chapter one identifies the Word with Jesus

(C) In Matthew 28 Jesus enjoins baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If you mean that the word “Trinity” was not used till later that is perfectly correct. But the fact of God’s Trinitarian nature is made plain in scripture.

I assume you are not Catholic?

I dont consider this explicit evidence of the Trinity and i am Catholic.

Peace!!!

 

[upant]

It is explicitly in the Bible

(A) In Genesis, chaper 1

God is the Father Who creates
The Spirit who moved over the face of the waters and
The Word which God spoke

(B) John Chapter one identifies the Word with Jesus

(C) In Matthew 28 Jesus enjoins baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If you mean that the word “Trinity” was not used till later that is perfectly correct. But the fact of God’s Trinitarian nature is made plain in scripture.

I assume you are not Catholic?

I disagree, it may be implied but it isn’t explicit.

the op believes in bible-only and the trinity isn’t explicitly defined in the bible, it was defined by the Catholic church.

 

[tafan2]

How does the Bible interpret? You are associating an active verb with an inanimate subject. Is nit the Bible the object if interpretation?

 

[tafan2]

We have free will, but God will but allow us to lose our faith? So we only have free will UpTo the point that we accept Jesus as our savior? Or faith us nit a matter of will?

 

[lagerald24]

Hi Grant! Thanks for posting here, brother! As someone who’s tried to study up on what other Christian communities believe, I was wondering if you were a Baptist who leans more towards the Southern Baptist or Reformed (Calvinist) Baptist churches?

 

[grantklentzman1]

Southern Baptist

 

[grantklentzman1]

Well it’s debatable in Christian circles whether he was a Christian or not. I don’t believe that there’s any sin that can separate us from God if we trust in Jesus Christ’s work as the sole means by which our sins are forgiven. However, I do agree that free will means that you have the freedom to make choices and we are responsible to walk in faith and faithfulness and love back the God who created us, love us, and sustains us on a daily basis.

 

[grantklentzman1]

I completely understand and agree that we will know believers by their fruit. However, I think that our justification comes from trusting in His sacrifice and the fruits are the result. I think fruits are the way that you and I can have an idea of who’s truly living for God and has faith in Him.

 

[grantklentzman1]

What do you mean by Holy Communion? We may have differences. However, I think we’d both agree that the Lord’s Supper is something the church should do in remembrance of what Jesus has done

 

[stoplooklisten]

Well it’s debatable in Christian circles whether he was a Christian or not.

Judas was one of the Twelve and a Christian. In Matthew 10, He is named as one of the Twelve. In Matthew 10:1, Jesus Christ gave authority to each of the Twelve. Jesus gave power to Judas and to each of the Twelve to have authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.

Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness. 2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus; 4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him. (Matthew 10:1-4)

 

[grantklentzman1]

That’s a great question. I think that these verses all carry a lot of theological truth in them and don’t want to discount them. The way I as a protestant would understand this would be that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus’ work and the result of that is good works. There is a sense in which we are being perfected day by day and that believers should grow in holiness. However, I also believe that we are completely justified and forgiven at the moment we believe in Jesus’ work on the cross