Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[tgGodsway]

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

Entering the kingdom of God is not some kind of synonymous term for eternal life. The only people who can enter the kingdom of God are those who can “see” it. and then enter it. Born again people can see it, and then may enter it. See Jn. 3.

The Jew (or any unsaved person) who rejects their Messiah can say Lord Lord all they want, and even do many good works, but Jesus will say, “I NEVER knew you…” Jesus doesn’t know them and never did.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

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.

How does St. Paul including himself deny that Christ will reward some and condemn others?

 

[De_Maria]

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.

You sound convinced. Thanks for being honest. I really like setting things down side by side so that our beliefs can be compared and contrasted.

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.”

That doesn’t say that Jesus Christ is not going to judge sinners. It says that He is not going to be sacrificed again for the forgiveness of sins. In other words, if you haven’t accepted His sacrifice on the cross, there will be no other sacrifice for sins.

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.

This is true.

The penalty for all sin was once for all time removed forever.

That contradicts the Word of God.

2 Thess 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; 7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. 11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power: 12 That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is good news.

To whom? To people who believe in injustice? God is righteous and God is just. God does not reward the wicked.

Proverbs 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.

All who will lock-in to this promise benefit from the work Christ did. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

How do you lock-in to His promise? By declaring yourself saved? Then what is the sense of a Judgment?

No. That is Satan’s snare:

Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Listen carefully. Those under grace can still sin unto death.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

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

Entering the kingdom of God is not some kind of synonymous term for eternal life. The only people who can enter the kingdom of God are those who can “see” it. and then enter it.

Thus, you’ve disproven the idea of an “invisible” Church.

Born again people can see it, and then may enter it. See Jn. 3.

Yeah. The Catholic Church is the Kingdom of God. We have seen it and entered into it.

The Jew (or any unsaved person) who rejects their Messiah can say Lord Lord all they want, and even do many good works, but Jesus will say, “I NEVER knew you…” Jesus doesn’t know them and never did.

Why would anyone who rejects their Messiah, call Him “Lord”?

Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Even those who are under grace, may sin unto death.

 

[Glark]

The significance of John 1:42 is that Jesus had selected Peter as “the rock” before he had even met him. Protestants cannot explain why.

 

[Reuben_J]

The name changes also. God changed their names in the OT which brought great significance as to their meaning and implication to the persons and the Covenant.

In the NT, Simon was named by God, Peter (Cephas or rock) and Saul to Paul, the latter the only non-follower of Jesus to be granted the rank of apostle. No other apostles had their names changed by God.

Wonder what their Biblical scholars make of this.

 

[Augustine3]

Did God change Saul to Paul?

I was under the impression Saul was his Hebrew name and Paul was his Greek name although each name has a different meaning…

 

[Reuben_J]

Did God change Saul to Paul?

I was under the impression Saul was his Hebrew name and Paul was his Greek name although each name has a different meaning…

You are right. … Paul, was his Latin name which he used after his conversion. My bad.

Then Peter was the unique one who had his name changed by God in the NT.

Thank for the correction.

 

[steve-b]

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”.

I don’t think that Newman would disagree with what the CCC says.
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;

I say that because of Newman’s teaching on baptismal regeneration. Something Protestants uniformly reject.

Nor do I think would he disagree with

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.

given his view on the transformation of the individual who has been baptized

"Scripture has not undertaken to tell us every thing, but merely to give us the means of finding every thing; and thus much we can conclude on the subject before us, that if it is important, there are means of determining it; but we cannot infer, either that it must actually be commanded in the letter of Scripture, or that it can be found out by every individual for and by himself….

But it may be said, Scripture says that the times of the Gospel shall be times of great light: “All thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children.” [Isa. liv. 13.] This is true: but whose children? The Church’s." from http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume7/sermon16.html

And we know the phrase Newman made famous. “to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant” and the result of his knowledge? He came into the Church Jesus established.

 

[guanophore]

obstinate post-baptismal denial

It is really not our place to determine who is a heretic, and who is not. We cannot read the hearts of others. I agree with you that children of the Reformation do embrace heresies, but their “obstinancy” is more connected to their conviction that what they were taught is the Truth, over and above what has been contained in the CC.

That’s why we evangelize and educate.

I agree, but it might be more useful to identify certain doctrines that represent a heretical position, as opposed to labeling those who hold to them

I like it the way I said it.

i am sure, otherwise you would not have said it that way.

The difference is that faith, working through love, is found in Scripture while “faith plus works” is not. I mean the words, not the concept, which certainly is.

Faith plus works is a construction that could be logically separated, where I think we would all agree that saving faith is a quality of faith that produces good fruit. The “works” emanate from that faith, and cannot be separated from it.

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?

If we say that God’s saving grace is conditioned upon our behavior, it would represent a semi-pelagianism.

You are waiting to be judged at this judgment so that you can know for sure that you will have eternal life.

No, we believe there is an individual personal (particular) judgment at the time of death. Later we wil allso participate in the general judgment at the end of time.

the decisions made here have nothing to do with eternal life but everything to do with inheritance,

It seems like a great deal of scripture would have to be ignored to support this position.

It is a judgment to determine what you have earned,

This seems to imply that a person can “earn” salvation!

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 benefit from the work Christ did. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is a very Calvanist position.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

obstinate post-baptismal denial

It is really not our place to determine who is a heretic, and who is not. We cannot read the hearts of others. I agree with you that children of the Reformation do embrace heresies, but their “obstinancy” is more connected to their conviction that what they were taught is the Truth, over and above what has been contained in the CC.

That’s why we evangelize and educate.

I agree, but it might be more useful to identify certain doctrines that represent a heretical position, as opposed to labeling those who hold to them

As far as making judgements about others

Consider the following http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/how-to-respond-when-people-say-who-am-i-to-judge

 

[De_Maria]

If we say that God’s saving grace is conditioned upon our behavior, it would represent a semi-pelagianism.

tgGodsway:

On the contrary, you ought to study pelagianism and its various forms. You got that interpretation from Protestants, who hardly know what they’re talking about with regards to Catholic Teaching.

The Catholic Church Teaches synergism. Man cooperating with the grace of God. In other words, God gives the initial grace of conversion. If the man cooperates with that grace, God gives him more grace. This continues throughout a man’s life and the moment he ceases to cooperate with God, God ceases to give him more grace.

CCC#2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

Semi-pelagianism is simply a variant of pelagianism. Pelagianism means that man does not need God to get to heaven. But can make himself worthy of heaven by his own works.

Semi-pelagianism means that man was given grace by God when he was conceived. But then, man no longer needed God to work his way to heaven.

 

[guanophore]

Entering the kingdom of God is not some kind of synonymous term for eternal life. The only people who can enter the kingdom of God are those who can “see” it. and then enter it. Born again people can see it, and then may enter it. See Jn. 3.

This is confusing. If you must “see it” to enter it, and you can only “see it” after youare born again, then how is entering it not a synonym for eternal life?

The Jew (or any unsaved person) who rejects their Messiah can say Lord Lord all they want, and even do many good works, but Jesus will say, “I NEVER knew you…” Jesus doesn’t know them and never did.

Doesn’t this mean they were never born again, and never entered the Kingdom?

The penalty for all sin was once for all time removed forever.

Removed for who? Those who are predestined to salvation, not all? I fnot all, then how do you explain away the verses similar to 2 Thess 1:6 ?

 

[De_Maria]

i am sure, otherwise you would not have said it that way.

The difference is that faith, working through love, is found in Scripture while “faith plus works” is not. I mean the words, not the concept, which certainly is.

Faith plus works is a construction that could be logically separated, where I think we would all agree that saving faith is a quality of faith that produces good fruit. The “works” emanate from that faith, and cannot be separated from it.

James 2:24 says “by works a man is justified and not by faith only”. Now, the words, “not by faith only” mean that saving faith is accompanied by other conditions. The other conditions mentioned there, in ADDITION TO faith, are works.

Therefore, faith + works is just fine.

I hope we can at least agree to disagree.

 

[guanophore]

CCC#2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

I noticed you bolded the human part, rather than the “moved by the Holy Spirit” part. This is what confuses protestants, who think Catholics believe that we “can merit for ourselves” apart from the HS moving us to do so . The merits emanate from the same grace that saves us.

I hope we can at least agree to disagree.

We don’t disagree, De Maria. Saving faith is never “alone”. Saving faith is always accompanied by the fruit of the Spirit that was unmerited.

I am just saying that the term “addition” or the construction “plus” is confusing for Protestants and it is easy for them to misunderstand how Catholics understand salvation using this construct.

 

[De_Maria]

De Maria said:
It is a judgment to determine what you have earned,

I was merely using tgGodsway’s terminology.

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

Neither he nor I believe that one can earn their way into heaven. Or, you can ask him if you don’t believe me.

I find it quite annoying to continually quibble about terminology when I think I have had a history with a person and have gotten to know his way of speaking and thinking.

This seems to imply that a person can “earn” salvation!

On the other hand, I’m not one who is afraid of an economic model of salvation. Jesus Christ used it in the Parable of the Labourers:

Matt 20:8 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’

St. Paul used it in these words:

Galatians 6:7 Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows,

And St. John, in these:

Revelation 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.

Sooo, what’s the problem?

 

[guanophore]

I was merely using tgGodsway’s terminology.

Indeed yes. The problem is that tgG thinks that Catholics believe we can earn salvation by good works. He believes we practice a “works based salvation” that has it’s origin in human beings “meriting salvation” by doing good works.

Neither he nor I believe that one can earn their way into heaven.

I know that. The point I am making is that he believes that you believe you can!

I find it quite annoying to continually quibble about terminology when I think I have had a history with a person and have gotten to know his way of speaking and thinking.

OK. But I note that he has not budged off his confiction that you are part of a works based system.

Sooo, what’s the problem?

misperceptions by those who have been indoctrinated in the belief that Catholics do not believe we are saved by grace, through faith, and not of works, lest any man boast.

 

[Baltimoreson]

Newman’s defense of infant baptism does not at all support a view that somehow baptism teaches a children or infuses knowledge, nor does the Church teach that it infuses knowledge, Infant baptism is not a “coming to the truth” nor does it give the mind or soul any ability to discern truth from falsehood or true doctrine from false doctrine. And if a child is taught mistaken doctrines and his parents and relatives are all Protestants and he grows up with no favorable views of the Catholic Church, or even if he grows up with favorable views of Catholic friends but thinks them mistaken, it is not “obstinacy” to refuse to believe; or if someone received poor Catholic teaching, and believed it to be fundamental Catholicism, and converted, he would not be obstinate in refusing to believe orthodox Catholic doctrine or the arguments given for it. The person has to learn or acquire faith in orthodox Catholic teaching and then repudiate it with full knowledge of its truth and then be indifferent to his obligation to hold it and not to teach another faith – that is obstinacy.

 

[guanophore]

it give the mind or soul any ability to discern truth from falsehood or true doctrine from false doctrine

We might not be able to go as far as “soul”. If indeed we are washed and regenerated, then the soul is open to experience the Truth of God in a way that the fallen soul, bound by sin, does not. There are ways for God’s Truth to be infused into a soul before the mind can actually catch up. Think if the child saints, who had such a strong conviction about the faith before they even reached the age of reason!

it is not “obstinacy” to refuse to believe

It seems “obstinant” at times, especiaily if that indoctrination is very anti-Catholic. Every Christian has the responsibility to seek the Truth, and there are many Protestants that come here to CAF who seem “obstinant” that are here seeking truth. Even if they think they are here to bring Catholics Truth, they end up learning about us and our faith.

The person has to learn or acquire faith in orthodox Catholic teaching and then repudiate it with full knowledge of its truth and then be indifferent to his obligation to hold it and not to teach another faith – that is obstinacy.

I think what has been proposed is that obstinant appearing Protesatnts who have come to CAF have been “told” they are wrong and are repudiating it, as if they had the whole teaching adn full knowledge. Shoot, the majority of Catholic don’t know their own Teachings, and many that do, like birth control, repudiate it!

 

[tgGodsway]

misperceptions by those who have been indoctrinated in the belief that Catholics do not believe we are saved by grace, through faith, and not of works, lest any man boast.

I hear what you have said guanophore but I spent two months on this site debating several people about the concept of justification. For you it is not a settled matter UNTIL you stand before God at the judgment seat. Then and only then will God render a final judgment as to whether or not you are justified eternally. So that, for now, your justification is “pending” a final slam of the gavel. Your eternal salvation is on a probationary status pending the outcome of your good works. I don’t think my estimation of this is far off base.

We, (in the reformed view) see justification as a settled matter when you come to Christ. The judge has already slammed the gavel and made a pronouncement of innocence over you, based solely on the work of another, namely Christ redemptive work on the cross. Therefore your received justification (by faith alone) is gifted to you when God declared you RIGHTEOUS in position with Christ. You already have eternal life even though your body dies.

However, how you live as a redeemed soul matters for eternity. If you live for yourself only, God will reward you accordingly. If you live for Christ only, He will reward you accordingly. The judgment seat is all about WORKS.