I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[ncgolf]

Ozzie:

Tell me then, what are these “merits” for?

Remember the parable of the dishonest steward. The master was coming to settle the accounts. The steward was panicking and then he set out to settle the debts. What the servant did was to forgive a part of the debt in the hopes of some goodwill should the servant be thrown out on his ear by the master.

What did the master do? He praised the dishonest steward. That is what we, as humans, are … dishonest stewards. If you cannot see some dishonest steward (really just an ordinary sinner like all of us) in you then you are deluding yourself. The merits I described are like the actions of the stewards. We, in this life, squander many of God’s gifts but then we realize that we are misusing these gifts, that the master will return and we will have to face him (our judgement at death). We cannot give anything directly to God so we give our time, talent or treasure to others.

That is not trying to earn your way to heaven but rather to show that you have used your talents and treasures on earth wisely. Like the dishonest steward we will have to settle our account with the master, what will you show the master what you have done with what He has entrusted to you?

I have always had trouble with this parable … until your question Ozzie. Thank you. I tell you the best way to understand something is to have someone question you.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Ozzie:

2. Salvation is NOT BY anything you have done (not even believing).

.

I must say this is the very first time I’ve heard anyone claim that belief is not necessary for salvation. Are you sure that’s what you meant to imply?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Ozzie]

twf:

Ozzie: It seems to me that you read into my post on page two what you wanted to read, not what I actually wrote…

I reread you post on page two, twf, but I come up with the same conclusion. My response to you was in respect to your wording that we must “receive this grace,” responding to you that grace is not something that we wilfully receive, but the means by which God saves us. “For BY GRACE we have been saved…”

You continue to insist that we can not merit salvation and that there is nothing that we can do to earn it. You are 100% correct. Is this not exactly what I said in my post?

If I am 100 percent right, then why are you challenging my posts? If that is exactly what you said in your posts, then why are we still going back and forth?

It is only and completely because of the cross, yet not all humans are automatically saved, we must accept it; that is, co-operate with God’s grace.

Not all humans are saved because not all humans choose to believe. One does not RECEIVE, i.e., as a volitional act on his part, “God’s free gift of salvation.” One BELIEVES the gospel message concerning Christ’s sacrificial death for the forgiveness of ALL sins, and through that act of faith, God, by grace, saves him completely. We do not on our part “co-operate” in any way with divine grace. Grace is is the means of a divine act by which God saves, forever, the one who believes the gospel message concerning Christ’s sacrificial death on his behalf, and His subsequent resurrection (Rom. 10:8-9).

Note: The Greek word for “repent” is metanoeo and it means “to have another mind,” IOW, to change one’s mind. When the unbeliever is asked to “repent” it means to change one’s mind, turning from unbelief to belief in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. For this reason the call for the unbeliever to “repent” is joined with the proclamation of the cross and the resurrection of Christ.

Because of Christ’s merits, which are applied to us, the fruit of Christ’s grace become pleasing to God,

Good works are the product of the BELIEVER’S spiritual rebirth, being a “new creation” in Christ. The RC idea that Christ’s “merits” are applied to us is erroneous. At the time of belief it is Christ’s RIGHTEOUSNESS that is imputed to the believer (Rom. 5:9, 17; 2 Cor. 5:21). Where in God’s Word do you ever read that Christ’s “merits” are applied to us? The word is not even used in the N.T. The notion that eternal life comes as a result of merit, and that grace is essential in order to enable one to do meritorious “good works” is Augustinian, not Pauline. Other schoolmen developed the anti-Biblical doctrines of *“merit of congruity” *and “merit of condignity.” It was taught, and still held by the RCC, that the “merit of congruity,” connected to so-called “general grace,” paves the way for “initial justification.” The second, “merit of condignity” leads to eternal life. But NONE of this is Biblical. It was Alexander of Hales (d 1245) who advanced the totally anti-Biblical doctrine of the “Treasury of Merit.” Thomas Aquinas endorsed it. RC’ism is inextricably tied up with the concept of merit, and these meritorious “good works” are contiguous with eternal life. Connected to all this “merit” madness is the anti-Biblical, RC system of “Indulgences.” This why the totally confused, very misguided RC insists that no one can know for sure he HAS eternal life. A totally anti-Biblical conclusion, since it blatantly denies what Christ Himself and the N.T. writers taught concerning eternal life in the Word of God.

 

[CAtoIL]

GrzeszDeL:

Well, you are at least right about the existance of bad teachers. If there were more good teachers, then more Catholics would know that it is a dogma of the Catholic faith that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is true that in recent years some prominent theologians, including John Paul II, have speculated that it might be possible for Protestants and suchlike to be in the Catholic Church without realizing it, and thus be saved by virtue of their (unwitting) association with the Church, but one way or another it is quite definitely the case that outside the Catholic Church one cannot be saved.

Thank you. Would you dorect me to the source of this doctrine. please?

 

[GrzeszDeL]

CAtoIL:

Thank you. Would you direct me to the source of this doctrine. please?

Dear CAtoIL,

If you click the link in my initial post, it will take you to a list of patristic and scriptural quotes which undergird this particular Church teaching. By way of magisterial sources, I think that the teaching is most clearly summarized in the councils of Florence, Lateran IV and Vatican II, as well as the Papal bull Unam Sanctam and the CDF document Letter to the Archbishop of Boston. I hope that helps.

 

[bemmel]

Lance:

I am a convert from Methodist. I was well on my way to hell before my conversion. Not because I was Methodist, but because I was a bad Methodist and a bad person. Being Protestant or Catholic has nothing to do with whether you go to heaven or hell.

Of course, I can’t be sure, but there could be Catholics going to Hell, and Methodists going to heaven. Only God will decide, not man.

This of course brings up the philosophical questions of the “pious pagan.”

 

[Writer]

JesusFreak16:

So no one can “know without a doubt” that he/she is going to heaven? I hope you don’t believe that. I hope you know you are going to heaven.

God’s Peace~ Lisa

You are trying to bring up the issue of the assurance of salvation, but Catholics view this in a different way. I just explained this issue to a Catholic and clarified that my views as a Catholic and my perspective as a Protestant (in the Nazarene and Free Methodist traditions) have not really changed at the root. Yes, being saved and baptized sets the believer on the road to salvation. There are many grave sins still possible by the believer which could cut him off from the love of his creator. Look, for example, at the historical figure of Rasputin. He may have professed Christ at one point, but considering the evil he brought on his homeland and the Tsar’s family, need we wonder too much precisely where his is right now? It really boils down to common sense and an understanding of the nature of free will. Don’t over simplify it…

 

[JesusFreak16]

Anyone who wants to talk to me or wants me to reply to them, go to my last thread. I want to sort everything out because some people have hostile feelings towards me, and I want to resolve some issues.

God’s Peace~
Lisa

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mrS4ntA:

Indeed.

The fact remains, though, that it was the Church’s Council that defined it infallibly the canon of Scripture (i.e. which ones were God-breated and which were not). In effect, the Bible itself is part of our Tradition and it is indeed a Catholic document.

True enough - but it’s as well to make things unambiguously clear sometimes ​

 

[Ozzie]

ncgolf:

Remember the parable of the dishonest steward. The master was coming to settle the accounts. The steward was panicking and then he set out to settle the debts. What the servant did was to forgive a part of the debt in the hopes of some goodwill should the servant be thrown out on his ear by the master.

I’m very familiar with the parable. If you’re interpreting the parable in reference to salvation, then you’re presenting a works salvation. If not…then what’s your point?

 

[Ozzie]

Catholic4aReasn:

I must say this is the very first time I’ve heard anyone claim that belief is not necessary for salvation. Are you sure that’s what you meant to imply?

Is there a difference between the words “for” and “by?” You must be careful how you read things.

 

[Ozzie]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Ozzie!

Does the possibility at least exist that you’re wrong?

Not unless there’s the slightest possibilty that His tomb is not empty.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Ozzie:

Is there a difference between the words “for” and “by?” You must be careful how you read things.

A clarification will go further than a snide remark.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[twf]

Ozzie: I still say much of our disagreement is from a misunderstanding of terminology (on your part, and I mean no offence by this, but I understand what you mean…I am a former Evangelical myself…but I don’t think you are quite understanding what I mean by my terminology). I can’t address your post at the moment, I have to get going (I’ll try to get to it soon) but in the mean time I have a couple requests:

1. Try to speak to us Catholics a bit more charitably please…we don’t appreciate people telling us to our face that we don’t know Christ, and that we are ‘anti-Biblical’…non-Biblical, maybe, but not anti-Biblical. (Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks for the hope that is within you, but do so with gentleness and respect).
2. Please drop the use of “RC”, I’m sorry, it’s a pet peeve, but I find it very annoying. It’s not simply a “Roman” Catholic understanding of salvation, but the ancient, orthodox, apostolic understanding of salvation shared by all Catholics, Roman Rite or not. (Not all Catholics are of the Roman Rite, you know…there are Coptic Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Maronite Catholics, etc all with their own traditions and customs but fully in union with the See of Peter). As well, it is the teaching of the Eastern Churches that are not in communion with Rome.
3. Please take a look at and explain to be your understanding of the Scriptures I cited back on page 2.

God bless.

 

[ncgolf]

Ozzie:

I’m very familiar with the parable. If you’re interpreting the parable in reference to salvation, then you’re presenting a works salvation. If not…then what’s your point?

Then what is your interperatation?? Why is the steward so afraid of the masters return?? Why does the master praise someone so untrustworthy as the dishonest steward??

I am putting myself in the shoes of the steward and seeing how the parable fits into life and death. Where do you see yourself in this parable?

 

[RBushlow]

Ozzie:

I’m not real concerned what early church writers had to say. I am very concerned, however, with what God has communicated to us in His written Word. You should be too.

I certainly am. Since they were taught by the Apostles, who were taught directly by Jesus, I think they may lead to a clearer understanding of what Jesus taught.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

I have addressed a number of things in your posts and have refuted them all with scripture. You have not replied to these things. I realize that you are being hit from all sides so I am not offended nor do I assume that you are dodging my points and questions.

On the other hand, I am disturbed by some of the things you said which I pounced on in my last several posts. I am disturbed not so much because they are non-Catholic or anti-Catholic in nature, but because they do not even conform to general protestant teachings. Please review my posts and carefully try to see the difference between your claims and the voice of scripture.

I am curious, and would appreciate it if you would let me know what church you are a member of? I only ask this because I find your understandings * to be quite different from those of all the many protestants I have ever encountered. Can you explain why this might be the case?*

 

[Ozzie]

ncgolf:

Then what is your interperatation?? Why is the steward so afraid of the masters return?? Why does the master praise someone so untrustworthy as the dishonest steward??
I am putting myself in the shoes of the steward and seeing how the parable fits into life and death. Where do you see yourself in this parable?

To begin with, it is a parable. A story that teaches something. More often than not people who read Jesus’ parables read more into them than what is actually being taught by them. This parable is more difficult than others and many have pondered over it. It’s a parable about stewardship of this world’s goods (especially money), not salvation. Prior to this parable Jesus was speaking primarily to the Pharisee and scribes (Lk. 15:1), He turns from them and now addresses His disciples also, but still within hearing range of the Pharisees of whom it is said in vs. 14, “they were lovers of money,” and hearing what He had been teaching His disciples they were scoffing at Him. The Pharisees were men who desired material gain while claiming to be the teachers of the moral Law and interpreter of spiritual life to the people of Israel.

The story is about a rogue steward, and a rogue he was to the very end. What he did was wrong. And everything he did was to ensure that when he was put out of his place as steward by his master, the friends he had made through the actions he took would take him in. He decided to make himself safe by robbing his master - again. Jesus ended the story by saying that the steward’s master actually commended him for his shrewdness. But take note there is nothing in the text to give us the impression that Christ Himself commended the man. Jesus merely told the story.

Why did he tell it? It’s intended to institute a contrast between “the sons of this age,” and the “sons of light” (vs. 8). Even using the negative example of the shrewdness of the rogue steward, and the astuteness of the “sons of this age” in carrying out their enterprises to their own financial gain in this world system. Jesus pointed out that they’re even wiser at this in their generation than the “sons of light” (true believers) whose understanding reaches realities.

Jesus turns to his disciples and says "make friends for yourself by means of the mammon of unrighteousness (i.e., money); that when it fails (death occurs), they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. In other words, the “sons of light” are to learn from the astute “sons of this age,” not to be wise steward of money simply for temporal gain, but for eternal reasons (vs. 9).

After telling them the right use of money, He went on to show them the principle of fidelity: “He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in the much.” Jesus did not say that he who is faithful in a little “will be” faithful in the much, but the principle that he who IS faithful in the little IS faithful in the much, and vice-versa. So what is the 'little" and what is the “much?” The “little” is the “mammon of unrighteousness,” i.e., money; the “much” refers to eternal realities, the gospel of God’s Grace through Jesus Christ, the things of the Spirit, one’s relationship with God. Jesus was calling them to a right view of life and a right view of relative values.

The parable has nothing to do with how one obtains or loses salvation.

 

[Ozzie]

twf:

1. Try to speak to us Catholics a bit more charitably please…we don’t appreciate people telling us to our face that we don’t know Christ, and that we are ‘anti-Biblical’…non-Biblical, maybe, but not anti-Biblical. (Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks for the hope that is within you, but do so with gentleness and respect).

I never said RCs don’t know Christ. RC doctrine fails to understand the salvation Christ procured and secured through His once for all sacrificial death on the cross. This remarkable truth is revealed in the Bible, hence, to teach differently would be anti-Biblical. And some things taught by RC’ism is simply non-Biblical, such as the Marian doctrines. What can I say?

2] Please drop the use of “RC”, I’m sorry, it’s a pet peeve, but I find it very annoying. It’s not simply a “Roman” Catholic understanding of salvation, but the ancient, orthodox, apostolic understanding of salvation shared by all Catholics, Roman Rite or not.

Well, obviously I take issue with your statement that the RC doctrines on salvation are the “ancient, orthodox, (esp.) apostolic understanding of salvation.” The Roman Church claimes catholicity, i.e., that it is THE universal Church, but claiming this doesn’t make it a reality. I belong to the “Catholic” Church, but not the “Roman” Catholic church. And I disagree with much of its teaching on salvation, as you have seen by my posts. Sorry, my friend, but “RC” and RC’ism are terms that describe your particular religion and beliefs. And many of your beliefs are not Catholic (universal).

1. Please take a look at and explain to be your understanding of the Scriptures I cited back on page 2.

At this request I felt like posting one of those little smiley faces “rolling on the floor laughing.” My friend, your post is six pages long. I don’t have time to write a book refuting a long list of Bible verses out of context. This is not the medium for that. Just quoting a bunch of verses mean nothing and it is near impossible to reply to all of them. Be reasonable, my good man.

 

[Ozzie]

Catholic4aReasn:

A clarification will go further than a snide remark.

I had no idea I came across snidely. Brief yes, but I did not mean to be snide. The explanation is quite simple: No one is ever saved BY faith, all are save BY grace THROUGH faith (Eph. 2:8). If we were saved by faith then we’d have something to boast about. But we are saved fully and completely by GRACE, hence, no one can ever boast. Grace is firmly rooted in the cross of Christ where His work was accompished and completed for the believer’s total redemption from death and eternal judgment, and reconciliation to God. Where the offended holiness of God, because of man’s sins, was forever satisfied (propitiation), and God can now look at the true believer with divine favor. Saved BY GRACE through faith. Rejoice!!