"Don't follow the Commandments"

[Dirk_Skene]

Hi ya Jimmy. Yep. If the “once saved, always saved” concept is true then you don’t have to worry about a thing Just get saved then do whatever you want :extrahappy: Sad thing is that I know Protestants that actually believe this. It’s downright silly of course, but they believe it. Forget the fact we are to “work out our salvation” Or has that passage been elininated from their version of the Bible along with the rest of the books that they tossed out?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hi ya Jimmy. Yep. If the “once saved, always saved” concept is true then you don’t have to worry about a thing Just get saved then do whatever you want :extrahappy: Sad thing is that I know Protestants that actually believe this. It’s downright silly of course, but they believe it. Forget the fact we are to “work out our salvation” Or has that passage been elininated from their version of the Bible along with the rest of the books that they tossed out?

Congratulations, you understanding this thread! :yeah_me:

 

[Dirk_Skene]

…Congratulations, you understanding this thread! :yeah_me:

I noticed that most posting here did not, so I thought I’d chime in

 

[JonNC]

Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works

http://www.vatican.va/roman_c…ration_en.html

Where there is no true repentance, but the intent remains to continue in sins, there true faith cannot exist, and faith that does not work by love but remains without good fruits, is not true, but feigned and dead faith. - Martin Chemnitz

Just feeling colorful today.

 

[reteeks21]

Congratulations, you understanding this thread! :yeah_me:

Are you not tired of starting the same old threads? You have made clear over and over that you believe protestants feel like they live however they want to when we have rebutted that claim every time. There are plenty of catholics who think all they have to do is go to mass and confession and then they are set. Why don’t you start a thread about them? How many times do you have to be told that we do not believe we can do what we want because we are saved by grace before you stop creating the same old threads under different names?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Hello O.S. Luke,

“Strawman” must be your favorite word now, you have used it several times, in various posts to describe me
Do you even know what the Strawman Fallacy is?

You’re funny.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

“Strawman” must be your favorite word now, you have used it several times, in various posts to describe me…Interesting that, as a Protestant, you would use that term to describe me, a Roman Catholic, when we both know that Martin Luther called the Book of James, the “Book of Straw” and he did not want to include it into the Protestant KJV Bible…Apparently, he thought it was “too Catholic” for the Bible…a CATHOLIC BOOK!.

He’s not calling you a strawman, he’s saying you’re setting up a strawman argument. You would do well to look up what that means.

 

[khutcheson]

Congratulations, you understanding this thread! :yeah_me:

No, YOU misunderstand or misstate OSAS!

You define that doctrine in a way that subjects it to ridicule.

I agree by the way that if OSAS meant what you seem to think it means, it’s ridiculous (in fact, wasn’t there a rather famous 1st or 2nd century heresy that based upon your implied definition of OSAS?)

Fortunately, I have never heard anyone who believes in OSAS who doesn’t also believe that:

If we are saved we WILL love the Lord
If we are saved we WILL obey the Lord. That means doing stuff like, joining with other Christions, (Church), Baptism, marriage (if called to that state), loving our neighbors as ourself, etc.

You do a great job of demolishing a strawman, but you fail to address what most of us really believe.

 

[Jimmy_B]

… You need help, Jimmy - you are a bully and a taunter.

Come on…admit it…you know you like me

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Jimmy, whether you realize it or not, your tactics are like tripping an elderly woman to teach her not to fall.

More like taunting her for lying facedown in the mud, while she’s walking along the sidewalk and looking at him in bemusement.

I can see he’s trying for a reductio ad absurdam, but he’s mistaking a conclusion for an axiom. It’s a lot like taking JPII’s condemnation of America’s “culture of death” and then listing every possible observation about American culture and saying the Vatican condemns it all.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Crazy Diamond;4511859:

I suppose one could come up with a bizarre scenario involving a deathbed conversion or complete absence of any Christian mentoring immediately following a conversion that might in some way qualify for whatever it is you’re getting at…

Actually, this is not so bizarre. In the olden days, people would wait till the last minute to get baptized, so that they could meet their maker in a state of purity. It is very risky!

Well, hello Guanophore! Because of you, I’ve been lurking on the Eastern Rites forum a lot. Fascinating bunch you all are.

Bizarre scenarios: What you’re talking about was all the result of deliberate planning. The scenarios I was thinking of involve: a remote person with no access to Christian community converting and then having the missionary die with no chance for mentoring or passing on any literature that could substitute; or a deathbed conversion that did not allow for any spiritual growth or activity beyond conversion.

The convert I’m thinking of would have no access to Christian guidance for their actions for the rest of their lives, or no time for good deeds left in their brief time here. In those cases, even OSAS folks wouldn’t begrudge them a lack of good deeds in their Christian lives.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I understand JimmyB’s intent with this thread…maybe some folks would’ve worded it differently but I see the intent and thought…

What Jimmy is saying is that protestant theology of the “three solas” really makes our personal behavior separate from our faith, which Jimmy rightly says Christ does not want us to do.

Martin Luther’s “go and sin boldly” statement to Melanchthon, which has become infamous now, sums up the protestant idea during the Reformation that our salvation is a done-deal, sealed, delivered, and that our personal journey of living the Christian life is minimized at the expense of a a recognition of Christ being our Lord and Saviour.

Protestants do not have the understanding of venial/mortal sins that Catholics have so often times they take liberties with it, get divorces and remarry and when a Catholic calls them on it, they say, “hey, we all fall short of the glory of God. I’m saved and He’s forgiven me” instead of repenting. The look at marriage as not being a sacrament but a “work” and some view baptism as a “work” and don’t see it as crucial toward salvation?? It’s like a liberation theology to have carte blanche, do as you will, and still get the prize.

Getting back to the thread: why DO we need commandments or even the Gospels if we’re saved already by mere faith with no real hard demands on living the Gospels? Why did Jesus give us so many admonishments, warnings, and outlines for our daily behavior if our faith overrides those admonishments?

Jimmy isn’t saying that all protestants don’t care about marriage or morality. Some Catholics obviously don’t! What he’s saying is WHY should one care coming from that mode of thinking that faith overrides all of our works anyway? At least that’s what I glean from the thread…

 

[JonNC]

=gurneyhalleck1;4518419]
What Jimmy is saying is that protestant theology of the “three solas” really makes our personal behavior separate from our faith, which Jimmy rightly says Christ does not want us to do.

There is no such thing as “protestant theology”. There is Lutheran theology, Calvinism, etc., and even the way we view the thre solas varies widely.
Nowhere in Lutheran theology is our personal behavior separate from our faith. See my signature below.

Martin Luther’s “go and sin boldly” statement to Melanchthon, which has become infamous now, sums up the protestant idea during the Reformation that our salvation is a done-deal, sealed, delivered, and that our personal journey of living the Christian life is minimized at the expense of a recognition of Christ being our Lord and Saviour.

This is an incorrect understanding of Luther’s statement to Melanchton. Lutherans have never believed that our sanctification is minimal. The Confessions are quite clear on this.

bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV.%20Good%20Works.

1. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.

10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins

Getting back to the thread: why DO we need commandments or even the Gospels if we’re saved already by mere faith with no real hard demands on living the Gospels? Why did Jesus give us so many admonishments, warnings, and outlines for our daily behavior if our faith overrides those admonishments?

We wouldn’t need them if this were true. It is not, so they are.

Jon

 

[khutcheson]

Jimmy isn’t saying that all protestants don’t care about marriage or morality. Some Catholics obviously don’t! What he’s saying is WHY should one care coming from that mode of thinking that faith overrides all of our works anyway? At least that’s what I glean from the thread…

Why should we care? We do we care? Because the Bible tells us we must care. Because the Holy Spirit convicts me (often) of my sin when I don’t care.

OP’s original point was based on a simplification and misunderstanding of Protestant theology which he then uses to paint us in a ridiculous light.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

What he’s saying is WHY should one care coming from that mode of thinking that faith overrides all of our works anyway? At least that’s what I glean from the thread…

That’s partly why I say he’s mistaking a conclusion for an axiom. The Protestants I know are either OSAS or Arminians as a conclusion to their looking at how to live the Christian life.

The Once-Saved-Always-Saved folks have have a greater tendency to worry about their own sincerity in devoting their lives to Christ. Every fall makes them wonder “was I serious or just fooling myself?” OSAS helps them to get beyond it. It’s as if they say to themselves “I know I was sincere at least one of the forty-seven thousand times I prayed ‘the prayer’ and so salvation is mine. It’s time to get on with the next bit, and ‘throw off every hindrance and the sin that so easily entangles’ and live in a way that honors Christ.”

We Arminians, on the other hand, tend to worry about our own tendency to coast. Arminianism helps us think “I haven’t got the crown of glory yet, so don’t slow down, don’t stop, keep finding ways to bring glory to the Father.”

Now I’m not at all saying that OSAS and Arminianism are just psychological tricks that keep us on the straight and narrow. My point is that each is a spur to live in Christian obedience, not an excuse to drop out of it.

Of course there are some people who use it as an excuse. But that is the Straw Man version, not the version of mature Christians.

Martin Luther’s “go and sin boldly” statement to Melanchthon, which has become infamous now, sums up the protestant idea during the Reformation that our salvation is a done-deal, sealed, delivered, and that our personal journey of living the Christian life is minimized at the expense of a a recognition of Christ being our Lord and Saviour.

I was going to use Martin Luther’s “peccave fortis” as an example of a conclusion that should not be taken as a premise in an earlier post, but I don’t think it’s directly related. My understanding of “peccave fortis” was that Luther was commenting on how sin permeates everything. He wasn’t commenting on salvation. His point was that there’s no sense trying to scrub every motive and every good deed absolutely pure before acting. Your actions will be tainted with sin no matter what you do. It is only God’s grace that allows our good deeds to not be overwhelmed by the sinfulness we bring to even the best of them. So, don’t worry so much about your inherent sinfulness that you don’t do any good deeds. Yes, even with the best of your deeds, you’re going to sin. But good deeds are good to do anyway, so “sin boldly.”

It wasn’t meant as a license to live an unholy life. It was, as I say, a witty conclusion rather than a premise.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There is no such thing as “protestant theology”.

That’s what bothers me about it…

 

[Lujack]

That’s what bothers me about it…

I don’t think it is particularly bothersome; I just think it means one is asking the wrong question. Asking about Protestant theology is like asking about the governor of the American state; the proper answer is actually a question “Which one?”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think it is particularly bothersome; I just think it means one is asking the wrong question. Asking about Protestant theology is like asking about the governor of the American state; the proper answer is actually a question “Which one?”

That proves my point as to why I’m concerned. Christ established His Church, one Church. There are not multiple governors or “takes” on His kingdom. Truth is not relative nor is theology. God cannot be all things to all people or different realities for Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Wesley, Cranmer, and company. These illustrations only further my confidence that I’ve done the right thing being a Roman Catholic.

 

[reteeks21]

I understand JimmyB’s intent with this thread…maybe some folks would’ve worded it differently but I see the intent and thought…

What Jimmy is saying is that protestant theology of the “three solas” really makes our personal behavior separate from our faith, which Jimmy rightly says Christ does not want us to do.

Martin Luther’s “go and sin boldly” statement to Melanchthon, which has become infamous now, sums up the protestant idea during the Reformation that our salvation is a done-deal, sealed, delivered, and that our personal journey of living the Christian life is minimized at the expense of a a recognition of Christ being our Lord and Saviour.

Protestants do not have the understanding of venial/mortal sins that Catholics have so often times they take liberties with it, get divorces and remarry and when a Catholic calls them on it, they say, “hey, we all fall short of the glory of God. I’m saved and He’s forgiven me” instead of repenting. The look at marriage as not being a sacrament but a “work” and some view baptism as a “work” and don’t see it as crucial toward salvation?? It’s like a liberation theology to have carte blanche, do as you will, and still get the prize.

Getting back to the thread: why DO we need commandments or even the Gospels if we’re saved already by mere faith with no real hard demands on living the Gospels? Why did Jesus give us so many admonishments, warnings, and outlines for our daily behavior if our faith overrides those admonishments?

***Jimmy isn’t saying that all protestants don’t care about marriage or morality. Some Catholics obviously don’t! What he’s saying is WHY should one care coming from that mode of thinking that faith overrides all of our works anyway? At least that’s what I glean from the thread…/***QUOTE]

But that is NOT what we think and Jimmy has been told this numerous times yet he keeps perpetuating this idea. He obviously can’t get over it. If he really wanted to help folks become Catholic he could go about doing it a different way. And if that is not his stated goal then he’s engaging in baiting which only leads to arguing, bickering, and division. The whole purpose of his threads are to stir up trouble, period. They are outright attacks on protestants, plain and simple.

You made a great point about catholics who don’t believe in the very things he accuses protestants of not caring about. But what if we brought that up (I know some do so let me say if I brought it up, which I NEVER would)? If we pointed out that catholics do as they please and act like going to confession and receiving communion makes it all better. That would be insulting to catholics, and it would paint a picture that was not at all accurate. He constantly throws all of us under the bus, and he ASSUMES we don’t care about works. We do! We just don’t see it the way he sees it. What is so hard about that conceot for him? Why does he keep spouting false claims?

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Sad thing is that I know Protestants that actually believe this.

That would be an interesting experience. I never have met another Protestant who believed they were saved and could therefore live however they pleased. I doubt you’ll find many of them in church on Sunday morning.

But that is NOT what we think and Jimmy has been told this numerous times yet he keeps perpetuating this idea. He obviously can’t get over it.

Out of curiosity, Jimmy B., do you know someone like this? If there’s someone at work or in your neighborhood who lives a thoroughly immoral lifestyle and claims they’re fine because “once saved, always saved” then I can see why you keep bringing it up.