Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[steve-b]

steve-b:

So why did Ignatius, a first century bishop, ordained by the apostles, direct disciple of John, say that the Church of Rome holds the presidency? Ignatius BTW, is from Antioch in Syria.

I don’t know if he actually said that but there is one thing I do know, the apostle John has never said it. and It was John was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

You don’t know that. Ignatius is John’s disciple. What Ignatius learned, he learned from John.

 

[Baltimoreson]

A person who is baptized but raised to believe that the Gospel was rescued from obscurity by the Reformers is not a heretic, even if he first teachers in the line of his confession were. Bl. John Henry Newman wrote (in one of his letters, I think) that it might be unsafe for a Protestant to attend Catholic arguments if he were sure that the Chirch was wicked – that one might be doing violence to his conscience until he were to come to doubt what he had been taught and truly seeking a possible resolution.

 

[steve-b]

Glark:

For many years I have been asking Protestants this question: Why were Jesus’ very first words to Simon, “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (“rock”), which is interpreted Peter.” (John 1:42)? I have never received an answer.

They will say 1) The “rock” is Peter’s faith, which we should all have in Christ, and that is the foundation of the Church. 2) The Rock is Christ, and He was referring to Himself as the Rock upon which the church is built. 3) Peter is really only a “pebble”, and we are all equally pebbles.

Please read the following from Karl Keating Peter the Rock | Catholic Answers pebble is referred to 5 times. See who is making that argument about “pebble”

 

[nearlycatholic]

Irony of ironiesthat is the same thing they ask about Catholocs! Why can’t Catholics just get it?!

 

[tgGodsway]

Here is what we do know, none of the Apostles, including Peter, talk about the authority of the Church of Rome over them. None of the N.T writers even hint this. The principle of treating others as better than yourself is the norm. You try to make a foundational statement from one man’s statement, a man outside of the founders. Very unconvincing to any serious student of scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Here is what we do know, none of the Apostles, including Peter, talk about the authority of the Church of Rome over them.

This is silly tgG. The main reason that Rome came to have the primacy was due to the labors of St. Peter and St. Paul. This barely began during their lifetime.

None of the N.T writers even hint this.

Actually there is a great deal about authority in the NT, but it is either disregarded, or interpreted specifically in an anti-Catholic manner.

The principle of treating others as better than yourself is the norm.

The two are not mutually exclusive, tgG. A humble person who has an attitude of servant leadership is not devoid of their authority.

You try to make a foundational statement from one man’s statement, a man outside of the founders. Very unconvincing to any serious student of scripture.

Not so, tgG. Rather, we understand the one man’s statement in the light of what we have received from the Apostles.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Agreed. They fell away from salvation.

No no… we are NOT in agreement they fell away from eternal salvation. Why? the passage does not say that. If you think it does, please point to the exact words you believe mean that.

All I have to do is point to yours. You said:

The author basically said, people who have gone this far cannot in of themselves be brought back to repentance. (Of course with God all things are possible.) They will find themselves in a state of un-repentance. Their hearts were hardened to this fact. And of course they will find themselves standing at the judgment seat of Christ to give an account. They denied Christ and thus Christ will deny them.

Are you now going to claim that those people who deny Christ and whom Christ denies, will be saved?

 

[steve-b]

A person who is baptized but raised to believe that the Gospel was rescued from obscurity by the Reformers is not a heretic,

Not a heretic… YET ! That’s NOT a permanent immunity.

Definition of heresy
2089 "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

So

Once a person is given knowledge of the truth, AFTER they have been baptized, AND obstinately deny some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; THEN they ARE in heresy.

No more immunity of heresy for them. That’s why we evangelize and educate.

Baltimoreson:

even if he first teachers in the line of his confession were. Bl. John Henry Newman wrote (in one of his letters, I think) that it might be unsafe for a Protestant to attend Catholic arguments if he were sure that the Chirch was wicked – that one might be doing violence to his conscience until he were to come to doubt what he had been taught and truly seeking a possible resolution.

If Newman really said that, and I doubt he did say that, ( but if he did say that, please find it properly referenced), that notion would have been wrong. We are always encouraged to find truth.

Newman made the following phrase famous. “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Does the C of E have a centralized authority?

Yes. The Queen followed by the Archbishop of Canterbury followed by the Bishops and the Synod.

Ok, thanks. That’s what I thought. But when I’ve said that to others, they denied it was true.

Are Anglicans and C of E, the same thing?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Do you really think that someone who is a partaker of the Holy Ghost is not a member of the elect? And yet, he can lose his election

I do not take the position that they were NOT saved. I believe the author’s example, was one of saved Jewish converts. Actually he gave a potential example and not a real situation. But that is neither here nor there.

Lol! It is both here and there. You claim that saved, Jewish converts, who potentially might fall away, would be denied by Christ and yet saved?

There appears to be a logical inconsistency there.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

It has to do with St. Paul and St. Peter’s warnings

No… the author is consistent between chapter 6 to chapter 10. These same potential people of chapter 6 were used again in chapter 10 to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves, AS IS THE MANNER OF SOME, (chp.6) but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the DAY approaching…
V26… For if we (He includes himself) sin willfully, (as those potential examples in chapter 6) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, BUT A CERTAIN FEARFUL EXPECTION OF JUDGMENT AND FIERY INDIGNATION … which will devour the adversaries. The author parallels the consequence of our judgment with the unsaved here, probably to underscore the depth of recourse for their own sins. God will judge HIS own.
But nowhere can I find the concept that these people ceased to be God’s people or that eternal life was relinquished in any way… please point me to the exact words that do say this.

Really? You, yourself, said that Jesus would deny these people. If we skip to Chapter 10, it says:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Or do you mean that these people will be saved, as though by fire (i.e. purgatory, 1 Cor 3:10-15)?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Just claiming to be saved, doesn’t make you saved. It is God who saves. And we will all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ to find out where we stand in His eyes.

The Judgment seat of Christ is not a judgment for the lost, but the saved.

Hm? Really?

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Who made that Judgment?

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:…

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Who is the Son of Man and what Judgment is He going to make of the goats on that day?

 

[De_Maria]

I think it is unnecessarily confusing for Protestants. The theological gap is better addressed by characterizing it as “faith, working through love” and “faith that works” (saving faith is a faith that produces good works). Otherwise, it sounds too much like Pelagianism to them.

I like it the way I said it.

De_Maria:

We don’t see the terminology, “free” gift, in Scripture.

"For ye are saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves; it is God’s gift: 9not on the principle of works, that no one might boast " Eph. 2

Many bibles have the word “free” preceeding “gift” in this passage.

I don’t see “free” in that example. But I’ll take your word for it. However, gifts are not necessarily free of encumbrances. Are you saying that God’s salvation is not conditional?

 

[steve-b]

Here is what we do know, none of the Apostles, including Peter, talk about the authority of the Church of Rome over them.

Here is what we do know,

You don’t acknowledge when you are wrong, and you don’t open links that prove you are wrong Debating with protestants who just won't listen - #305 by steve-b

tgGodsway:

None of the N.T writers even hint this. The principle of treating others as better than yourself is the norm. You try to make a foundational statement from one man’s statement, a man outside of the founders. Very unconvincing to any serious student of scripture.

I’ve given you the scripture accounts of Peter being the greatest. And it was Jesus who made Peter the greatest among the apostles, AND the leader / head of the Church Matthew 16:18 controversy - #257 by steve-b

And since Peter’s see was Rome, THAT’S why the Church of Rome is so important.

 

[Baltimoreson]

Newman did write it, to a friend who was concerned by the ill-conceived zealotry which, far from bringing people to serious consideration of the Church, drove them off by its manner. But Newman was a voluminous letter writer, and I read it in one of the large biographies of Newman – not sure whether it was Ian Ker’s or Merriol Trevor’s – but I’d have to do a more extensive search. It might even have been in an intro to one of the centennial editions of his work published in he early 2000s.
But anyone who reads Newman attentively will know that Newman never would have agreed that baptism alone gave a person the knowledge sufficient to distinguish between the apostolic teaching of the Church and that which was presented as such by the English Church or by Dissenters. Newman himself only came to Rome after a long ordeal and was acutely aware of the dilemmas faced by someone raised in that tradition must surmount even to look impartially on Catholic claims.
So many, Catholic and Reformed, confuse firmness in profession or clarity in evangelizing with mere abrupt proclamation, combined with a delight in denunciation of “heretics”.

 

[tgGodsway]

Are you now going to claim that those people who deny Christ and whom Christ denies, will be saved?

Yes, these converts denied Christ, but NO to they will be saved. They already are saved because eternal salvation was given to them as a free gift apart from works. This is why they will be standing at the judgment seat of Christ instead of the great white throne judgment. The great white throne judgment is held a thousand years after the judgment seat and the saved are not invited. It is the judgment of the lost.

You, assume, (please correct me If I do not represent you properly,) that the judgment seat of Christ is a judgment of God to determine the adequacy or inadequacy of a sinner before God. It is a judgment to determine whether or not one will enter eternal life or enter eternal damnation. Am I correct? You are waiting to be judged at this judgment so that you can know for sure that you will have eternal life.

We do not view the Judgment seat of Christ this way at all. It is NOT a judgment over a sin issue at all. Sin was already judged when God the Father judged it on His Son Jesus Christ. He became the pass-over Lamb, (Jn. 5:24 who took away the sins of the world.) So that anyone who places their trust in Christ and the work He did, receives forgiveness of all sin, past, present, and future. All penalty of sin was absorbed and quenched by Jesus Christ. Paul said, He became “… sin for us.” 2nd. Cor. 5:21. This is why we can say that eternal life is a free Gift to be received by grace, through FAITH, apart from our good works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2:8.

Since all of this is true, then why would God have another judgment? The judgment seat of Christ is a judgment NOT to determine who you are, or where you will go. It is a judgment to determine what you have earned in good works. It is a meritorious judgment of the saved. This principle is based on various N.T. teachings but the one that sticks out for me is found in 1st. Cor. 3:13-15. It is both a metaphor and a depiction of the judgment where both successful and non-successful believers will stand before their God and give an account. Their is a group of failing Christians who will have to answer for their lack of faith. It is the one talent servant who refused to invest. He will stand and give an account. But again, the decisions made here have nothing to do with eternal life but everything to do with inheritance,

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Are you now going to claim that those people who deny Christ and whom Christ denies, will be saved?

Yes, these converts denied Christ, but NO to they will be saved. They already are saved because eternal salvation was given to them as a free gift apart from works.

That’s astounding.

So, once you have claimed to be saved by faith alone, you can commit any sin, even deny Christ and you will still be saved?

And even Christ denying you, you will still be saved?

This is why they will be standing at the judgment seat of Christ instead of the great white throne judgment. The great white throne judgment is held a thousand years after the judgment seat and the saved are not invited. It is the judgment of the lost.

Except that this contradicts the Word of God, which says:

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

You, assume, (please correct me If I do not represent you properly,) that the judgment seat of Christ is a judgment of God to determine the adequacy or inadequacy of a sinner before God.

Correct.

It is a judgment to determine whether or not one will enter eternal life or enter eternal damnation. Am I correct? You are waiting to be judged at this judgment so that you can know for sure that you will have eternal life.

Correct.

We do not view the Judgment seat of Christ this way at all.

Who is the Son of Man? Matt 25:31-46

It is NOT a judgment over a sin issue at all. Sin was already judged when God the Father judged it on His Son Jesus Christ. He became the pass-over Lamb, (Jn. 5:24 who took away the sins of the world.) So that anyone who places their trust in Christ and the work He did, receives forgiveness of all sin, past, present, and future. All penalty of sin was absorbed and quenched by Jesus Christ. Paul said, He became “… sin for us.” 2nd. Cor. 5:21. This is why we can say that eternal life is a free Gift to be received by grace, through FAITH, apart from our good works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2:8.

I’m glad I met you. It’s rare these days, that I meet someone who is willing to admit that they believe they can commit any sin and still be saved, simply because they claim to have faith.

We, obviously, don’t look at it as you do. We believe that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Cross to give us an example to follow:

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d with @tgGodsway

Since all of this is true,

None of that is true.

then why would God have another judgment?

God’s ways are far above our ways.

The judgment seat of Christ is a judgment NOT to determine who you are, or where you will go.

Scripture says otherwise. Matt 7:21-23; Matt 25:31-46;

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Acts 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

It is a judgment to determine what you have earned in good works. It is a meritorious judgment of the saved.

It is a judgment to determine what you have earned, period. Whether to eternal life or to condemnation:

Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

This principle is based on various N.T. teachings but the one that sticks out for me is found in 1st. Cor. 3:13-15.

That’s the explanation of Purgatory. How do you explain the fact that it depicts, a saved person, suffering in the after life?

It is both a metaphor and a depiction of the judgment where both successful and non-successful believers will stand before their God and give an account.

Non-successful believers? Interesting. What does that mean? Believers who will be condemned?

Their is a group of failing Christians who will have to answer for their lack of faith. It is the one talent servant who refused to invest. He will stand and give an account. But again, the decisions made here have nothing to do with eternal life but everything to do with inheritance,

So, is this your version of Purgatory? You also believe in a purification by fire in the after life?

 

[tgGodsway]

Except that this contradicts the Word of God, which says:

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

No… For WE… Paul included himself to stand at the judgment seat of Christ, to give an account for things done in the body both good and bad… I am consistent.

 

[tgGodsway]

I’m glad I met you. It’s rare these days, that I meet someone who is willing to admit that they believe they can commit any sin and still be saved, simply because they claim to have faith.

Yeah… I know it is a shocker to find out the actual freeness of grace, especially coming from a works foundation. I do not expect you to buy-in to these points until or unless the Spirit of the Lord convicts you over them. Eternal salvation really is free because our God is merciful and generous to people who do not deserve it. I am one.

But consider what the Hebrew writer said in Heb. 9:28, “So Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many will appear a second time, NOT TO DEAL WITH SIN, but to save=deliver those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

When Jesus said “it is finished…” He was talking about the fact that the Father’s demand for punishment over sin, was complete. Jesus Christ satisfied the Father’s demand. The penalty for all sin was once for all time removed forever. This is good news. All who will lock-in to this promise will benefit from the work Christ did. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.