My understanding is that many Protestants do accept
I don’t doubt at all that Protestants are aware we will all be judged; however, the point of contention is, what will God judge us by? Based on my various talks with Protestants online, it is surprising that they are not aware, or refuse to be aware, of the passages concerning Judgment.
I must be missing the point, I think.
Correct; but tell me then, would this not in essence then mean if we follow His commands, that we’ve worked, or made a deed?
I am not sure what you mean, but in many of the discussions, both online and off, I have had with Protestants, the curious thing that I often read or hear is this: “When you die, and you’re in front of Christ, what will you answer when He asks you, ‘Why should I let you in?’” Now, again in the various discussions I have had, it is usually the Catholic who would cite the passages concerning Judgment, not the Protestant. That is what I mean by Protestants either not aware of them, or else refuse to be aware of them.
In terms of “why should I let you in”…this is just an
Nice try, but that’s not what they actually answer. In the first place, is such a judgment scene even in the Bible? We take the Protestant notion of sola scriptura here, since they abide in that as well. Since the answer is a clear “no”, then in that alone such a notion should be discounted, since it’s not in the Bible. But then there’s more: the answer to that, if I am correct, is that Jesus should let a soul in because he put his faith in Christ. Now, that in itself wouldn’t be a problem, since as Catholics there is no real disagreement there per se, but then the underlying point of it all is that the Protestant is denying that our works have any value at all in salvation, over and above what Scripture plainly states.
Surprisingly again, a very Catholic notion. Some Protestants might say this, but in doing so inadvertently agree to the Catholic position then. However, Protestant notion of it by and large will not support such a statement.
But that’s the point! Many Protestants would quote St. Paul
There is an error in this one–the Church does not rely on Traditon alone; it holds both Scripture and Tradition to be its source.
Would this fact of life make it necessarily true then? Case in point–review the thread given by Montie here. There is one debater there, I call him hoppie, because of his user name, that insists that those who are not written in the Book of Life will be judged by their works. Now, last I checked, he has no response yet to what I pointed out–if that were so, then he believes that there must be 2 set of judgments, which is never in the Bible. But even more so, then he would have to agree that with those who have been judged by their works, then those who did good are still saved and will receive the reward. Yet in his previous post he said those not in the Book of Life will be condemned. So he’s in a predicament now, since the verses cited (Matthew 25:31ff and Romans 2:5-8) does say that those who did good are rewarded while those who did evil, or neglected their fellowmen, are condemned.
Would any of the threads here then be a waste of precious time? Or, would the debate between the pro-Arians and anti-Arians in Nicaea be considered a waste of time?
This is another issue all together, and I would think worth another thread (as it will throw this one off-topic), but I will just note here that such a view would then be a poor defense for not accepting the teachings of the Church.
Wrong! What is circular is to attempt to claim the Bible is inspired and inerrant because the Bible says so. The Catholic Church is linear in it’s approach. Christ taught the apostles and left them with the WHOLE deposit of faith. The Apostles thereby committed some of that in writing (the Bible). The WHOLE of the deposit of faith attests to what is in the Scripture, and thus the Scripture attests to what is in the deposit of faith. However, the Church does not derive her authority from either.
Yes, you are presenting the teaching of the Catholic Church
I don’t think any Catholic will have any problem with us being washed in His blood; the problem lies though if whether there is no need for us anymore to do good works, or that such is also needed for salvation. The answer is yes, it is needed, and Jesus is very explicit on this one. In short, then, our salvation is a continuous process, wherein we put our faith in Christ and then act on that faith, and then we are judged by God by what we’ve done as evidence of our faith.
Again, this is a separate thread or issue, not necessarily covered by what the thread starter wants conveyed. But tell us–what exactly is your point in asking the role of an apologist?
If I could put in my three cents, presuming this man is a Protestant? or non-Catholic, I’d ask him “how does he know the correct method of interpreting Scripture?” In other words, where in Scripture does it say how it is to be interpreted? Since it doesn’t, then anyones best guess is the best choice, yet that position is not only epistomologically untenable it doesn’t give conclusive finality to what Scripture means.
I’m interested in the distinction between
I see this as part apologetics and part evangelization.
Best wishes, :tiphat:
I think there’s a distinction between the two: evangelization, or maybe I should put in catechism here, involves explaining the basics of the Faith. Apologetics is actually an intellectual approach towards the Faith. Now, from what I understand about it, a catechist is not exactly an apologist. Meaning, the catechist may be able to explain the basics of the Faith, but might not exactly be able to defend it if it needs be. The apologist works on that, in that he explains the Faith in depths that a catechist might not be able to.
Depends on what you mean by the “judgment.” Jesus Himself says: