Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[tgGodsway]

justification is about being in right relationship with God.

So can you say that you have been JUSTIFIED by grace through faith and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God and NOT of works…?

If you say, YES I am justified. Can you say it is a settled matter? or is it pending any further behavioral, or belief choices not in line with God’s word?

 

[guanophore]

How does one fall away from grace?

A Calvanist cannot fall from grace because Calvin taught that the nature of sin changed “this side of the cross”. The wages of sin are no longer eternal death for the “true believer”, only temporal suffering Sin can no longer separate humans from God once they are regenerated.

Paul is speaking in a metaphor,… there is no literal fire here. It is an object lesson to teach a higher revelation.

No one is claiming there is a literal fire. Purgation occurs on the spiritual plane. It is painful because humans have trouble being separated from our attachments to sin.

This is the problem so many times. People read in-to the passage their bias.

It is not always a problem. If the readers lens is that of the Apostolic teaching, then reading from the position of the faith passed down to us brings clarity and prevents bias.

But on an eternal bases, seeing that eternal life was received as a free gift, they pass through the fires even though all of their wood, hey and stubble has burned up.

A gracious and merciful God spared them with a generous offer to eternal life by receiving Christ as savior.

On the contrary, it is a very good summary of the Catholic teaching on Purgatory.

So can you say that you have been JUSTIFIED by grace through faith and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God and NOT of works…?

Of course! I told you, tgG, the New Testament was written by Cathlolics, for Catholics. It is written there because this is Catholic faith.

If you say, YES I am justified. Can you say it is a settled matter? or is it pending any further behavioral, or belief choices not in line with God’s word?

The justification we recevied in Baptism is definitely a settled matter. We have free will, and can walk away from our inheritance that is kept imperishable for us in heaven.

 

[De_Maria]

No. The Queen is the supreme governor of the CoE. Not of anyone else. And no one submits to her, in the sense you seem to mean. She is the figurehead, not a Pope analogue.

Huh? What’s the sense in that?

Neither is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Other Anglicans have various polities,usually some sort of jurisdictional Primate. The Episcopal Church has a Presiding Bishop, who has been expanding the office, of late years.

You will recall that I’ve mentioned that Anglicans are, as you remember, motley, and hard to get into one basket. They are all episcopal in polity, but none have a Pope analogue. It’s hierarchical to the diocese level, and more democratic above that. Synods, General Conventions, such like stuff.

Mostly.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Good point. I want to ask you something that has always been confusing to me. Many Protestants deny that huge scandalous sins are greater afronts to God than little white lies. They claim that all sins are the same.

They deny the idea of the existence of a mortal sin.

Well it depends on what you are actually talking about. Sin is all the same in terms of what it will produce; death. All sin produces death whether it is small or larger in my view. But the Christian deals specifically with sin’s power which will lead to physical death if not governed. Sin’s penalty has been quenched by Christ at the cross. So, in actuality the sins that we sin have no penalty on them, only power over our mortal bodies if we do not learn how to “die” to the flesh and live after the Spirit.

But again, that power can destroy temporally without mercy if unchecked.

You addressed my point, exactly. We don’t believe that all sin produces death. In fact, Scripture says so.

1 John 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Most Protestants have agreed with you, even though I produced this verse. They say, either that God is perfect and expects perfection, therefore all sin is offensive to Him. Or that, to break one commandment is to break all of them. But, it seems to me, to continue in this vein is to set aside the clear Teaching from Scripture.

???

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Read the last three words. As through fire. Perhaps because I worked with fire on a daily basis, I can tell you, that being delivered “as through fire”, means suffering. Very painful suffering.

Not if you are Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. They walked though the fire unharmed by its flame. Read the story in Daniel. But again, Paul is speaking in a metaphor,… there is no literal fire here. It is an object lesson to teach a higher revelation.

Well, yeah. But St. Paul is clearly not talking about Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. So this is not about an experience like theirs, because he says:

“he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”

First thing I can show you there, is that this individual will suffer loss. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, did not.

Second thing, if we can go through it in detail,

he shall suffer loss

He suffered.

but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

This is a metaphor. He is saved, but not in a manner simply spoken. I mean, its not like he was brought in out of the cold and someone put on him some blankets and gave him some hot cocoa.

This man is saved in a very specific fashion, metaphorically speaking. The metaphor is very clear to me because I’m a man who saves things by fire. I cut them out with a 6000 degree torch. I burn off the dross and any impurities that can be seen from the outside. Then they are sent somewhere to be further sanded and or melted down.

THAT is how you save something, by fire.

You are trying to equate the idea of “saved as though by fire” with “saved unscathed”. But that makes nonsense of the passage.

 

[Darryl_B]

Forgive me, my friend, for I was once one of those protestants, I was not closed minded, I was ignorant, I had what can be called an authority void, which I filled with myself and the Bible. I interpreted it, as I thought it interpreted me. I was to be quite honest, alone, me and my Bible, as are all protestants, and as the years rolled on, it, the Bible, kept changing, at least I saw it that way at first, but then I realized the Bible didn’t change, I did, I developed with age, and then I found I could not take it any more, I needed someone to tell me what the Bible said, someone with authority granted to them by a higher authority.

5 years ago as a protestant the Pope would not be able to debate me (in my eyes only), 4 years ago I got on my knees, I don’t know how God does it but He does. I confess to having been a heretic.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

They lost their salvation

Would you please point me to those exact words, because I don’t remember seeing that.

The “exact words”? I’ll do that when you can point me to the words, “sola Scriptura”, exactly.

This is one of those shifting standards that Protestants keep imposing on us. When we ask for exact words, they don’t have to be there. But we must produce them for you. ??? Care to explain, why?

No, I can’t produce the exact words. But I can produce the exact idea.

First of all, he says that these men possessed the Temple of God in their bodies. We equate that, with the abiding of the Holy Spirit.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,

We are the house of God.

and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Because we received the Spirit of God, when were saved. We equated this with Baptism. You equate this with the moment you received faith. Right?

17 If any man defile the temple of God,

How do we defile the “temple of God”? In our Tradition, we do so by committing sins against God.

1 Cor 6:9…neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

How do you think that someone could defile the Temple of God in their body?

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d with @tgGodsway

him shall God destroy;

How does God destroy a man? By casting him into hell.

Matt 25:46 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:…

for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

The reason they are thus punished, is because they committed a sacrilege. They defiled a holy place.

This is the problem so many times. People read in-to the passage their bias.

Who is reading into this one, you or I?

Agreed, disobedient believers will suffer loss because of their unwillingness to surrender to the Lordship of Christ. Destruction is surely their plot in life. But on an eternal bases, seeing that eternal life was received as a free gift, they pass through the fires even though all of their wood, hey and stubble has burned up.
A gracious and merciful God spared them with a generous offer to eternal life by receiving Christ as savior.

Except that this verse is firmly plotted in the after life.

This is the good news that you were denied in your circle.

It’s fake news which you have accepted as truth. Our circle is well prepared for the events that await us in the after-life.

Here’s the thing, tgG, you claim that you draw your doctrine from Scripture. I can look out from my vantage and see that there are thousands of other people, who claim the same thing and yet disagree on major issues. Efficacy of Baptism, Real Presence, OSAS, etc.

I claim that I accept the doctrines which the Catholic Church was commanded by Jesus Christ, to teach. I see even more people all agreeing on the major issues. I also see that Jesus prayed for this unity.

It will take a paradigm shift for you to be able to understand and trust the Church. Why you don’t trust an institution which Jesus established, I can’t even imagine.

Don’t get me wrong, I was there before you. But I was an atheist. So, I trusted no one, except my physical organs, to tell me what was true.

What I can’t understand, is why Protestants, who claim to be followers of Jesus, believe that everything that came out of His mouth, was lost? How can you believe that He could not protect His Teachings? Why do you insist that if they weren’t written down, they were lost? Where is that written?

PS. I hope I caught up with my end of the discussion. I thought I’d seen another reply addressed to me, but when I scanned, I could no longer see it.

If I missed one, let me know. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

[De_Maria]

guanophore:

We call this falling away from grace. If we return to that state of grace during the course of this life, we can be restored to a right relationship again with Him.

How does one fall away from grace?

Although Scripture does not use those words. I believe it is the idea which St. John was alluding to when he said:

1 John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Sin unto death, means falling from grace.

CCC#1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

 

[GKMotley]

In Henry’s day, when the title was officially head of the Church of England, it was a useful thing to be. For Henry. In Elizabeth’s day, when she had changed it (via Parliament) to governor, it was a useful thing to be. Since the CoE is an erastian Church, and the monarch was (as you may recall) a puissant power in his/her lands in the day, he/she would head and govern the Church as he/she ruled and governed the nation.

You may have noticed that monarchy is not what it once was, in general. But the 1558 Act of Supremacy remains. The monarch is the governor of the CoE. And governs as he/she reigns. A figurehead.

 

[TheButler]

Second thing, if we can go through it in detail,

he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

I think this is in relation to the wheat and tares parable. The wheat can be used immediately for creating dough. The tares have to be dried and burned later to heat the oven. Without both wheat and tares one cannot bake bread. The wheat doesn’t have to wait. The tares do and lose their moisture hence they ‘suffer loss’.

 

[TheButler]

him shall God destroy;

How does God destroy a man? By casting him into hell.

God pretty much destroyed Job without the need for hell.

 

[TheButler]

You may have noticed that monarchy is not what it once was, in general. But the 1558 Act of Supremacy remains. The monarch is the governor of the CoE. And governs as he/she reigns. A figurehead.

The monarch also carries the title ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England’ and appoints the bishops based on the recommendations of the Prime Minister who in turn is advised by Church leaders. Bishops also have a role in the House of Lords which ratifies or blocks laws and bills passed in the House of Commons. Church and government are intertwined with the monarch head of both.

 

[GKMotley]

Yes. That is to say, the Monarch does those things as directed. The idea of the monarch being the supreme governor of the CoE, per the Act of Supremacy of 1558, has been mentioned. The intertwining is that erastian thing I mentioned.

 

[guanophore]

I was not closed minded, I was ignorant,

I confess to having been a heretic.

A person can embrace heresies and not be a heretic. There are plenty of Catholics who do the same. Heresy requires knowlege and obstinency. If one is ignorant, they need to be brought more fully into the faith (like Apollos). They are not heretics.

 

[steve-b]

All Church of England is Anglican. Not all Anglicans are Church of England. Consider Anglican as the genus, national or other jurisdictions as the species. The Episcopal Church in the US is Anglican. It is not Church of England. The Anglican Church in North America is Anglican. It is not Church of England. The Anglican Church of Canada is Anglican. It is not Church of England. The Anglican Church in America is Anglican. It is not Church of England.

The pattern follows. What is Church of England is the Church of England. Which is Anglican.

And ALL are Protestant.

 

[tgGodsway]

There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

yes I get it, thanks. in my view 1st. John 5 was talking about literal and physical death in verse 17. Not all sin leads to that. I was talking about it a more spiritual sense. To sin is the miss the mark of what God wants. It, is in that sense, a death, or as John said it in the early part of 1st. John, leads to 'darkness." Death and darkness can be interpreted spiritually, rather than literally and physically. But 5:17 seems to be using the word literally and physically. In that sense I agree not all sin leads to death.

 

[GKMotley]

Thanks, buddy.

Seen any good B westerns of late?

 

[tgGodsway]

How does God destroy a man? By casting him into hell.

This is a predictable reaction on both sides of the theological isle. It is a knee jerk for so many … but if you will slow down and do a word study on how the word “destroy” is used in the bible, you will find that it is used in many temporal ways. Only when it is intended to be understood eternally do you find specific language indicating that.

But an example to the contrary is also found:.
The Hebrew writer used this word in a temporal setting in Hebrews 10:38,39

Here it is…
“Now the just shall live by faith, but if anyone draws back, my soul has no pleasure in him. v39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition=destruction, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.”

He was talking about the JUST. Actually the larger context dealt with sinning believers who God would judge.
These justified believers were commanded to live by faith, but if anyone (of the just) shall draw back (back-slide) my soul=life (God) has no pleasure in him.
But we (the author’s circle of fellowship) are not of those who draw back to perdition= destruction, but of those (just ones) who BELIEVE to the saving (delivering) of the SOUL= LIFE.

The point should be clear, there is a state of destruction for disobedient believers. Destruction is the opposite of construction. It reminds me of a disassembled house. All of the parts to it are scattered in a yard and there is no ability to assemble them without the master builder in charge. This kind of description is a normal depiction of a backslidden life. This is what you find in 1st. Corinthians.

 

[steve-b]

Thanks, buddy.

Seen any good B westerns of late?

Jubal was on the other night.