Do Lutherans save themselves?

[tgGodsway]

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?..You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. - James 2:14,24 ESV

The James passage is out of it’s context and the Rich young ruler missed the point just like you did.

 

[AugustTherese]

The James passage is out of it’s context and the Rich young ruler missed the point just like you did

All I did was post Scripture from a Protestant Bible…and “it’s out of context”?! I suggest you read and interpret the Bible outside of 16th-century protesting novelties and commentaries.

 

[JonNC]

AugustTherese:

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?..You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. - James 2:14,24 ESV

The James passage is out of it’s context and the Rich young ruler missed the point just like you did.

It is not out of context. In fact, James is saying exactly what we just agreed on!

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

The Catholic explanation is in the Catechism along with the historical references. He is merely writing something, I suppose based upon his own ideas. I see no historical references.

Yet, you want us to accept it as gospel. What is your agenda?

Please reference the Catechism then.

I’ll do so when I feel it’s necessary.

Actually, I never said you should accept his word for it. I said bring evidence to the table that proves him wrong.

Why should I? He hasn’t provided any proof of his contention. He simply made an unsupported comment which you claimed was historical. So, you need to prove its historicity.

Since I’ve proven my points from the B of C and from actual Lutheran sources and you haven’t. If he’s better than me, then he’s far superior to you.

You’ve never proven anything from Lutheran sources except your ability to misrepresent
[/quote]

Yeah, I have. I’ve proven what is said in black and white, you claim things that aren’t written in the document. For example, the claim that Lutherans do not consider Sola Scriptura is a doctrine is claim you made based on the absence of the word “doctrine”. Yet, it is taught in the document, thus making it, de facto, a doctrine.

That’s the type of unsound, illogical, claims that you bring to the table. Very much like this idea that we should accept, carte blanche, that this guy’s claim of origins of the name for the “mass” is historically true, based on your and his opinions. Not on any actual history.

 

[De_Maria]

Really, you put up random numbers and claim that’s proof? Post some actual words that can be traced on the internet.

 

[tgGodsway]

All I did was post Scripture from a Protestant Bible…and “it’s out of context”?! I suggest you read and interpret the Bible outside of 16th-century protesting novelties and commentaries.

I argued in post 119 that salvation is by grace through faith, and apart from works… you know,… what Paul gave us in Eph. 2. to which you sent back the story of the rich young ruler as a rebuttal! but then, that doesn’t make sense now does it. The rich young ruler could have gotten his question answered from a N.T. angel if he would have understood just was Jesus was asking and why?

Why do you call me good?.. on what bases did the ruler see Jesus as good? … was it because Jesus kept the law? or was it because Jesus was God? It went right over his head. So Jesus simply pilled on the weight of the law to his shoulders with the hopes that the ruler would see his inadequacies and inability to keep the whole law, and then come to rely on God’s mercy and grace instead. But he didn’t.

 

[AugustTherese]

that the ruler would see his inadequacies and inability to keep the whole law,

"And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” - Luke 18:21 ESV

I’m wondering if Protestants actually read the Bible or do they merely go to the commentaries…

 

[JonNC]

I’ll do so when I feel it’s necessary.

Then don’t.

Why should I? He hasn’t provided any proof of his contention. He simply made an unsupported comment which you claimed was historical. So, you need to prove its historicity.

You don’t have to Do what you want.

Yeah, I have. I’ve proven what is said in black and white, you claim things that aren’t written in the document. For example, the claim that Lutherans do not consider Sola Scriptura is a doctrine is claim you made based on the absence of the word “doctrine”. Yet, it is taught in the document, thus making it, de facto, a doctrine.

You haven’t proven anything except that you won’t even listen to a priest who told you it isn’t. Why would I expect you to listen to anyone? Believe what you want.

Very much like this idea that we should accept, carte blanche, that this guy’s claim of origins of the name for the “mass” is historically true, based on your and his opinions. Not on any actual history.

Again, a misrepresentation of what I said. I said provide proof. You haven’t, and in fact said you won’t. Do what you want.

 

[tgGodsway]

I’m wondering if Protestants actually read the Bible or do they merely go to the commentaries…

O’ my goodness AugustTherese… tell me, was the rich young ruler truthful, that he kept all of the law since his youth?.. if he had, then he is the first in all of the world, next to Jesus. Paul said that “all have sinned and fall short…” did that include the rich young ruler?..
Or maybe the ruler convinced himself that he kept all of the law. But then now you are dealing with self-deception. The ruler was self-righteous. He probably really believed that he kept the whole law. But the apostle Paul and others would disagree.

Can you imagine that I came up with all of that without a commentary at my side?.. I impress myself AugustTherese.

 

[De_Maria]

AugustTherese:

All I did was post Scripture from a Protestant Bible…and “it’s out of context”?! I suggest you read and interpret the Bible outside of 16th-century protesting novelties and commentaries.

I argued in post 119 that salvation is by grace through faith, and apart from works…

You repeat the words well enough. But you’ve given them a different meaning than the one intended by the author.

you know,… what Paul gave us in Eph. 2. to which you sent back the story of the rich young ruler as a rebuttal! but then, that doesn’t make sense now does it. The rich young ruler could have gotten his question answered from a N.T. angel if he would have understood just was Jesus was asking and why?

Well, if you don’t like that one, let’s compare it to another Pauline verse, then.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Do you agree that this is saying the same thing as Eph 2:8?

Why do you call me good?.. on what bases did the ruler see Jesus as good? … was it because Jesus kept the law? or was it because Jesus was God? It went right over his head.

Agreed. Jesus was giving him an opportunity to recognize His Divinity.

So Jesus simply pilled on the weight of the law to his shoulders with the hopes that the ruler would see his inadequacies and inability to keep the whole law, and then come to rely on God’s mercy and grace instead. But he didn’t.

So, you’re saying that Jesus, by telling that the Law remained in force, was somehow advising him that it was not necessary?

I have to say, that’s a stretch. Because, if Scripture interprets Scripture, Jesus nowhere in Scripture advises anyone to disavow the Commandments.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

 

[tgGodsway]

You repeat the words well enough. But you’ve given them a different meaning than the one intended by the author.

really, how so? explain

 

[tgGodsway]

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Do you agree that this is saying the same thing as Eph 2:8?

Is this a trick question?.. in general yes.

 

[JonNC]

Really, you put up random numbers and claim that’s proof? Post some actual words that can be traced on the internet.

Go back and look at post 67 on this thread - from a Catholic who quotes a Catholic who quotes Ott.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

I’ll do so when I feel it’s necessary.

Then don’t…

Who died and put you in charge?

Jon, either provide the proof of your claim or accept that you have beleived someone’s nonsense and you want everyone else to follow you in your folly.

I won’t.

Anyway, just to show my good faith,

1332 Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God’s will in their daily lives.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You repeat the words well enough. But you’ve given them a different meaning than the one intended by the author.

really, how so? explain

Those words describe the reception of grace in the Sacraments. It is in the Sacraments, especially in Baptism, that we express our faith in God and He saves us by pouring out His grace in the washing of regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tgGodsway]

So, you’re saying that Jesus, by telling that the Law remained in force, was somehow advising him that it was not necessary?

I have to say, that’s a stretch. Because, if Scripture interprets Scripture, Jesus nowhere in Scripture advises anyone to disavow the Commandments.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

I come from the understanding that the Law had no power to save, period. Keeping the Law could not eternally save anyone, however, the Law in of itself was good. But the Law was added (Gal. 3:19) as a restrainer of sin. But that was all.
The rich young ruler came to believe, as all of the Pharisees did, that their was life in the Law. They convinced themselves that they were capable of keeping all of it at all times. It was a legalistic approach that was unattainable.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Do you agree that this is saying the same thing as Eph 2:8?

Is this a trick question?..

Yes. I know that it trips up Protestants because they don’t view the Sacraments as vehicles of grace. I think, you also told us so in an earlier discussion.

in general yes.

Good. I agree. Both of those are descriptive commentaries on the Sacraments. They both describe how the Sacraments work.

Notice that in Titus 3:5, it says “not by the works WE HAVE DONE”. In other words, people who have not done righteous deeds, are not part of this scenario. Only those who have done or attempted to do the works which God established for us to do from the beginning. Namely, only those who keep the Commandments, are eligible to receive this shower of grace.

 

[tgGodsway]

Those words describe the reception of grace in the Sacraments. It is in the Sacraments, especially in Baptism

That is well and good but you have added an element to the mix not found in the Eph. 2:8 passage… the concept of sacrament. I may agree with the concept but do not agree that it was taught in Eph. 2. You use it as a theological construct to explain what Paul meant but with a particular interpretation not necessarily that of Paul. The concept of sacraments is vague and subjective to me.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes. I know that it trips up Protestants because they don’t view the Sacraments as vehicles of grace. I think, you also told us so in an earlier discussion.

No… I think God can use anything or anyone He wants to convey His grace… so I won’t limit what God can do. But the CC has 7 sacraments, I’ve read, why only 7? …

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

So, you’re saying that Jesus, by telling that the Law remained in force, was somehow advising him that it was not necessary?

I have to say, that’s a stretch. Because, if Scripture interprets Scripture, Jesus nowhere in Scripture advises anyone to disavow the Commandments.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

I come from the understanding that the Law had no power to save, period.

So do we.

Keeping the Law could not eternally save anyone,

Hm? If the law has no power to save, keeping the law does not give the law any power to save.

Let me put it like this. Keeping the law does not save anyone. But unless a person keeps the Law, God will not save that person.

Make sense?

however, the Law in of itself was good. But the Law was added (Gal. 3:19) as a restrainer of sin. But that was all.
The rich young ruler came to believe, as all of the Pharisees did, that their was life in the Law. They convinced themselves that they were capable of keeping all of it at all times. It was a legalistic approach that was unattainable.

Except that God says it was attainable.

Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.