I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Ozzie]

Catherine S:

Who is more likely to have understood the teaching of the apostles correctly, those early writers we call the Fathers of the Church or the Protestant Reformers who came on the scene about thirteen centuries after the Fathers.

Actually, a more accurate question would be, "who has the greater advantage, those who read/study the non-inspired writings of the so-called “church (f)athers,” or those who read/study the inspired (theopheustos: God-breathed) Scriptures (notice no “F,” in church fathers since it is Biblically incorrect to put those men on the same level as the Apostles who are the “foundation” of the Church (Eph. 2:20-21)? The writings of those so-called “church fathers” were not guaranteed to be inerrant, they are not divinely inspired writings. That goes for their doctrinal thoughts as well. If you want to get back to the foundation of the true faith, Catherine, study the N.T. Scriptures. They’re the original source, make use of them.

 

[Ozzie]

CJE:

The biggest problem that I see with the Protestant view of OSAS, is that it removes any personal responsibility for sin.

There are always consequences for sin. Even societal. But for the believer in Christ Jesus, God has, by the cross, removed any eternal consequences (see Col. 2:13-14; Eph. 1:7). Of course be certain that God disciplines His children (see Heb. 12:1-13).

If Christ forgave all of our sins in advance, why is there any need for a judgement at the end of time. All God would need to do it say "You believe, you are saved.

For the true believer there is no “if” God forgives all sins through Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross. He actually does (Eph. 1:7). There is no judgment for salvation “at the end of time” for believers regarding sin. God is not going to judge twice for the same crime; He would be unjust and would Himself disregard the sin-sacrifice of His own beloved Son. Christ took upon Himself the divine judgment, in our stead, for all sins 2000 years ago (1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; Gal. 1:4). That’s what the cross is all about, my friend. You make you decision for or against Christ in this lifetime

Somehow, I know, it is not going to be that simple. Your eternal salvation is determined in this lifetime by that choice!!

"Somehow" you know? Is that your authority in respect to divine salvation? Our authority is divine revelation, the Scriptures.

 

[Ozzie]

Philthy:

You have ignored my post # 1177. Was it too much for you to handle or what? Be sure to give your answers to the SIMPLE multiple choices that I presented. And don’t worry about the crucifixion comments -

Sorry, I did read it but got carried off by other posts. I saw no multiple choices from which to choose in that post. Are you maybe thinking of another one?

This makes me think you don’t read my stuff - I’ve repeatedly and consistently stated in no uncertain terms that the atonement was perfectly and completely sufficient for the forgiveness of every sin for all time.

Yet you believe one unconfessed so-called “mortal” sin will cause for you everlasting torment in Hell, right? Or do you oppose that RC teaching?

Please don’t use the word efficacious - one or both of us is using it incorrectly. “Simply becoming a beneficiary” in no way should be thought of as not TRULY COMPLETING CHRISTS WORK ON THE CROSS. I can’t believe I’m the one forcing this issue. you are making faith sound like its nothing.

I’m not sure what you’re stating here, but when one believes in Christ the efficacious (oops!) work of Christ is applied to the believer IN FULL by God. You don’t “complete” anything!!! You are the beneficiary of His finished ("it is finished"), substitutionary, blood sacrifice. You keep wanting a part of it, but you can’t. It was a work that could be accomplished and completed only by the unblemished Lamb of God. You have no part in it sweetheart. His work on the cross had the power to validly effect totoal redemption, reconciliation and propitiation. The cross was the divine solution for sin (redemption), the sinner (reconciliation to God] and God Himself (propitiation, satisfaction of His offended holiness because of man’s sins). Because of the cross the believer, at the time of true faith, is completely, perfectly and forever redeemed and reconciled to God; and at the time of the cross God was completely and perfectly satisfied in respect to His offended holiness because of man’s sins. The power of a substitutionary sacrifice!

What can’t you (or refuse to) grasp, Phil? That God can be that loving toward sinners? That Christ could be so willing? That GRACE actually means GRACE? That the cross of Christ could actually be soooo powerful?

it just means that what Christ did, APART FROM SOMETHING ELSE (Faith), does not accomplish it’s complete purpose.

As I stated before, His substitutionary sacrifice accomplished its FULL, divine, sacrificial intent/purpose, irregardless of anyone subsequently believing or not. Read Rom. 5:6-11 where it states that while we were YET ENEMIES Christ died for us. And ponder on that a while, please.

What exactly does an empty Cross mean? Christ was never there? He’s dead and buried?

Nope, that His work was finished (see Heb. 1:3). “The cross is vacant, the tomb is empty” (read Rom. 4:25-5:1-2). A crucifix does not reflect this amazing truth! He’s not still on the cross and His work there is not still being accomplished: "It is finished".

 

[Ozzie]

Cubby:

Over the weekend I was reading the NT and came across some scripure that seems to refute popular protestant claims made on this thread. 1Cor. 10:1-13. St. Paul warns the Corinthians about being overconfident in their faith but then ends up telling them that God won’t test them beyond what they can handle. Now tell me, does this mean that it’s up to us to stand firm and hold fast to our faith? God gives us a way out of every temptation, but like the Israelites we can be lost in the desert although we have participated in God’s saving graces?

Yes, He gives us a way out of temptations. But falling into temptation doesn’t mean you’ve lost your salvation. Exhortations and warnings to continue in faith in the Epistles are not threats of losing what God has bestowed on the believer by GRACE.

In the verses immediately following these, St. Paul seems to give another reference to the real presence of Christ in Communion.

Notice in verse 16 Paul still calls it the “cup” and the “bread.” They are figurative, just as in verse 17 bread is used figuratively. In verse 21 he says “you cannot drink the cup of the Lord.” You cannot get transubstantiation from these verses.

 

[Ozzie]

Catherine S.:

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith?

Not according to the Bible

While we must guard against merely human tradition, **the Bible makes clearthe necessity **of clinging to apostolic Tradition.

Catherine, I noticed all the quotes you posted said the word “traditions” but none of them actually listed those so-called extrabiblical, apostolic “traditions.” And none of the writings of the men you listed are considered divinely inspired, therefore we cannot be absolutely sure they’re error free either in doctrine or thought.

So can you provide us with a list of these so-called Apostolic traditions and how we know they’re actually Apostolic and Holy Spirit inspired? Waiting patiently.

 

[Ozzie]

Catherine S.:

None of us have arrived and most of us have hardly begun! Love is never about words it is always about actions too. The Cross is about dieing and dieing to self is a life long process.…this will not be completed here on earth… we are still on the way.WOW…this is what you think the cross is all about, Catherine? Sounds like Christ is no more than a Buddha, just another avatar to show us the way.

Our response to the greatest of all loves…the love of Jesus for His Father and for us…opened the way to the Father but we must walk the walk.He “opened the way?” And now you must do the walking? This must be one of the estrabiblical “traditions” you’re talking about, right?

The Catholic Church teaches the truth of Salvation and has always done so… no matter how many of us go our own way.This is Christ’s Church and it will remain until the end of days.Yes, I see now…the “Church,” Romes holy episcopate, has replaced Christ and the Holy Written Word of God. Catherine, do you think it might be more effective if we face Rome when we pray? Just wondering.

Shalom

 

[chb03c]

ozzie,

how can you refute that the Bible says that the ‘true presences’ is figurative. Taking the Bible verse Luke 22:19 it says “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’”

Paul uses similar words in his letter to the Corinthians (1 corr 11:24) the Greek translation (translation of the Bible before english as you may know) says this:*Touto mou estin to soma. *Which translates to This is my body. The verb estin is the equivalent of the English “is” and can mean “is really” or “is figuratively.” The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb “is” usually is taken literally.

on another note if you check out some of the writings of the early Christian fathers you will see that it was widely believed that the ‘true presence’ was real.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

You’re connecting dots, Pax, but they don’t form the picture revealed in the actual text:

"…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:23-24).

It’s justification that’s the GIFT by His grace (unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved favor). Grace is the means by which God justifies the believing sinner, the cross always being the content of the justified one’s faith, which is expressed in verses 24 & 25. Verse 28 says “by faith” because the gift of justification is bestowed on the one who “rests” in the Person and work of Jesus Christ alone. The believer is “justified as a gift BY HIS GRACE” because of the cross.

Paul further developes this truth in Chapter four where he explains:

ROM 4:5 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,”

ROM 4:6 “just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:”

“Grace” is a divine means, not a gift. Faith being the agent, justification the gift.

Ozzie,

First you claim faith is not a gift and now you digging a deeper hole by claiming that grace is not a gift. While I say “Amen” to the verses you quote, I see nothing in them that vindicates your false claims that faith and grace are not a gifts.

Explain to me how everyone else connects the dots but you do not.

You have just demonstrated something very profound. No one, even though you claim otherwise, can interpret scripture on their own. You are not able to claim that you are guided by the Holy Spirit. You will not admit it, but you are setting yourself up as your “own” elder and apostle. You are making yourself your own pope. You are making yourself your own church and your own magesterium. Your exegesis is merely your whim and desire and is not grounded in the truth.

You deny faith and grace are gifts. Every Christian I have ever met considers such a denial to be heretical. You are out there somewhere on your own. I would wish you good luck, but what you need is grace.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

Actually, a more accurate question would be, "who has the greater advantage, those who read/study the non-inspired writings of the so-called “church (f)athers,” or those who read/study the inspired (theopheustos: God-breathed) Scriptures (notice no “F,” in church fathers since it is Biblically incorrect to put those men on the same level as the Apostles who are the “foundation” of the Church (Eph. 2:20-21)? The writings of those so-called “church fathers” were not guaranteed to be inerrant, they are not divinely inspired writings. That goes for their doctrinal thoughts as well. If you want to get back to the foundation of the true faith, Catherine, study the N.T. Scriptures. They’re the original source, make use of them.

Okay, your opening question can be answered this way. The advantage is to those who understand and appreciate “both” scripture and the Early Church Fathers as opposed to those that do not understand or appreciate either of them

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Okay, your opening question can be answered this way. The advantage is to those who understand and appreciate “both” scripture and the Early Church Fathers as opposed to those that do not understand or appreciate either of them

Or you could say the disadvantage of understanding the Faith, once delivered to the saints, is accepting divinely, un-inspired writings AS inspired writings and incorporating them into the Faith, not testing them BY the original source, Holy Writ, God’s Written Word. It’s not only a disadvantage but dangerous!

 

[ncgolf]

Ozzie:

Or you could say the disadvantage of understanding the Faith, once delivered to the saints, is accepting divinely, un-inspired writings AS inspired writings and incorporating them into the Faith, not testing them BY the original source, Holy Writ, God’s Written Word. It’s not only a disadvantage but dangerous!

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ. Therefore it can interpret scripture and apply them to Christ’s earthly kingdom. Jesus passed authority to Peter who passed it on …and so on an so on. Ozzie, your primary issue with the Catholic Church is with the authority that the Church claims to have. If you believe the Catholic Church is what Christ left us then you submit to it, because therefore if it is Christ it must be the Truth. If you dont then you protest the Church … that is where you are now.

Look at the way the Constitution or any law is interpreted. Our founding fathers were smart enough to leave us a structure to administer our Constitution and Bill of Rights … would God do any less, He knowing better than anyone our nature. Eventually we submit to an authority for civil or criminal actions … that is the court. You and I are not allowed to interpret law and implement those interpretations. We each can have our opinions about its justness or correctness, but all they are is an opinion. They carry no weight. I have said this before and so have others … you are your own pope, you have your own church and while you may be correct in some of your interpretations can you be counted on to be correct in all of them. If you are incorrect in just one … then your chuch is flawed and you preach what is less than what Christ desires.

 

[chb03c]

to add to that read Isaiah 22:15-24 and compare it to Matthew 16:15-19. now according to the profeit who will recieve the keys? and in the Gosple passage who ended up recieving the keys?

 

[Catherine_S]

Ozzie:

If you want to get back to the foundation of the true faith, Catherine, study the N.T. Scriptures. They’re the original source, make use of them.

No Kidding !!

---

It was and is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available. All Christians everywhere owe it a great debt for that.

**John Wycliff ****produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.
A fact usually ignored by Protestant historians is that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

****William Tyndale. He was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament). Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.” ****His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation **was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

**This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

**
Shalom

 

[Catherine_S]

Ozzie:

WOW…this is what you think the cross is all about, Catherine? Sounds like Christ is no more than a Buddha, just another avatar to show us the way.He “opened the way?” And now you must do the walking? This must be one of the estrabiblical “traditions” you’re talking about, right?Yes, I see now…the “Church,” Romes holy episcopate, has replaced Christ and the Holy Written Word of God. Catherine, do you think it might be more effective if we face Rome when we pray? Just wondering.

Shalom
Looking towards Rome is not a bad idea Ozzie. Many in our day are doing just that.…the road that leads to Rome is very busy indeed…you are welcome too!!

Shalom

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?pgnu=1&SeriesID=-6892289

 

[Exporter]

After reading the 16th Century Fathers (Bishops) reguarding John 6, it may be said that the posters on this thread have lost track of what was/is important. If an uninitiated person were to read the later part of this thread it would seem that John 6 is the only thing one needs for a one way ticket to heaven.

If that ticket was an automobile then John 6 would be something akin to a hood ornament. An unessential object to making the car go.

 

[Catherine_S]

Exporter:

After reading the 16th Century Fathers (Bishops) reguarding John 6, it may be said that the posters on this thread have lost track of what was/is important. If an uninitiated person were to read the later part of this thread it would seem that John 6 is the only thing one needs for a one way ticket to heaven.

If that ticket was an automobile then John 6 would be something akin to a hood ornament. An unessential object to making the car go.

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:

Sorry, I did read it but got carried off by other posts. I saw no multiple choices from which to choose in that post. Are you maybe thinking of another one?

It was a three part post. Posts 1175,1176, and 1177. Please go back and read them rather than having me re-post. thanks.

Philthy:

This makes me think you don’t read my stuff - I’ve repeatedly and consistently stated in no uncertain terms that the atonement was perfectly and completely sufficient for the forgiveness of every sin for all time.

Ozzie:

Yet you believe one unconfessed so-called “mortal” sin will cause for you everlasting torment in Hell, right? Or do you oppose that RC teaching?

Again you show a lack of understanding of terms my dear friend . I talk about sufficiency in my quote and you then go on to talk about “unconfessed so called mortal sin” as if the concept of a mortal sin excludes perfect sufficiency of the crucifixion. It doesn’t, for the same reason not everyone is going to Heaven yet the crucifixion is completely sufficient. Would it make sense for a Universalist to claim that YOU don’t believe in the sufficiency of the cross since you don’t believe everyone is going to Heaven? No it wouldn’t.
What you are driving at is the difference between Christs sacrifice to be instantaneously, completely and permanently applied to the believer at the time of faith vs the lifelong application of that sacrifice. That is a separate issue which we can take up once we arrive at mutually acceptable terminology to explain why everyone isn’t going to Heaven despite the complete SUFFICIENCY of Christs sacrifice.

Philthy:
Please don’t use the word efficacious - one or both of us is using it incorrectly. “Simply becoming a beneficiary” in no way should be thought of as not TRULY COMPLETING CHRISTS WORK ON THE CROSS. I can’t believe I’m the one forcing this issue. you are making faith sound like its nothing.

Part 1 of 2

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:
, but when one believes in Christ the efficacious (oops!) work of Christ is applied to the believer IN FULL by God. You don’t “complete” anything!!!.. You have no part in it sweetheart.

Again you fail to articulate why, if no person has a part in it, ALL PEOPLE AREN’T SAVED. You will then go on to say its a gift when they believe. Which of course means they did have a part in it unless you want to claim that faith is an involuntary gift from God. Claiming that means we can end this and all future discussions now as they become irrelevant. Evangelization is useless if you truly believe this; as is the bible and the Church and humanity as a whole.

Ozzie:
His work on the cross had the power to validly effect total redemption, reconciliation and propitiation.

Interesting shift of verb tenses. Why aren’t you saying that it actually EFFECTED total redemtion, reconciliation and propition? If you did mean to say that, can we go back to our FORGIVENESS OF SINS terminology and say…

" His work on the cross actually effected total FORGIVENESS OF SINS " 2000 years ago? I didn’t think so. And that is the topic - forgiveness of sin.

Ozzie:
The cross was the divine solution for sin (redemption), the sinner (reconciliation to God] and God Himself (propitiation, satisfaction of His offended holiness because of man’s sins). Because of the cross the believer, at the time of true faith, is completely, perfectly and forever redeemed and reconciled to God; and at the time of the cross God was completely and perfectly satisfied in respect to His offended holiness because of man’s sins. The power of a substitutionary sacrifice!

As I stated before, His substitutionary sacrifice accomplished its FULL, divine, sacrificial intent/purpose, irregardless of anyone subsequently believing or not.

Could we please stick to the FORGIVENESS OF SINS terminology? That is the topic.

Ozzie:
Read Rom. 5:6-11 where it states that while we were YET ENEMIES Christ died for us. And ponder on that a while, please.

I will read it. On its surface it seems unrelated, in my mind, to the topic at hand. It would only seem to be relevant if you believe in OSAS by faith alone… We aren’t touching that topic yet really. Just Forgiveness of Sins…

2 of 3

 

[Philthy]

Philthy:
What exactly does an empty Cross mean? Christ was never there? He’s dead and buried?

Ozzie:
Nope, that His work was finished (see Heb. 1:3). “The cross is vacant, the tomb is empty” (read Rom. 4:25-5:1-2). A crucifix does not reflect this amazing truth! He’s not still on the cross and His work there is not still being accomplished: "It is finished".

Nice try but your logic not only fails, but more strongly supports the Crucifix. After all, did He say “It is finished” on Good Friday or when He was resurrected? GOTCHA smarty pants! The Crucifix therefore celebrates Good Friday AND that “IT IS FINISHED”. You should stick to the Bible stuff - leave all the extra-biblical logical maneuvering to me. This is stupid to argue about. I have nothing against an empty cross - You should have nothing against a Crucifix. It is not intended to be a theological nuance. It is simply a profession of faith. You have nothing against the Crucifix - you have something against the people who wear them - Catholics. Did you not realize that WE are the object of your rejection - not the crucifix. And also don’t forget, Catholics make the “sign of the cross” which, of course, doesn’t involve any gesturing to reflect that Christ is still on the Cross. We’ve got ALL the bases covered…

Go reread posts 1175, 1176, and 1177 before you type anything!

Phil

 

[Cubby]

Ozzie:

Yes, He gives us a way out of temptations. But falling into temptation doesn’t mean you’ve lost your salvation. Exhortations and warnings to continue in faith in the Epistles are not threats of losing what God has bestowed on the believer by GRACE. Notice in verse 16 Paul still calls it the "cup

" and the “bread.” They are figurative, just as in verse 17 bread is used figuratively. In verse 21 he says “you cannot drink the cup of the Lord.” You cannot get transubstantiation from these verses.

Ozzie, I understand grace, it is by graced that we are being saved, and I understand falling from grace, but there seems to be more to these verses than just “cup” and “bread” - even St. Paul asked them to judge for themselves as sensible people what he had to say. His questions in regards to the participation in the blood and body seem to be rhetorical - as if he’s saying hey, you know this is the blood and body of Christ, everyone knows that, even comparing this to the sanctity of the OT altar…

I’m sure you have different thoughts on this! Do you mind sharing?

1 Corinthians 10:15-18

15

I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.

16

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

17

Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

18

Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?

Cubby
<><
PS: Sorry about the large font, don’t know why it did that…