Perplexed Protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Socrates4Jesus:
That’s interesting, Matt16; i never considered that i had the wrong definition of grace. I’ll have to look that one up in my Greek-Hebrew Study Bible.
  • Mercy = Not getting what one deserves (for example, God forgiving us for our sins when we confess them).
  • Grace = Getting what one does not deserve (for example, all the wonders of heaven & eternity face-to-face with the Savior who shed His blood for us).
Click to expand...
Your definitions of grace and mercy aren’t so much wrong as they are inadequate. For example you have tried to make a distinction in your definitions for grace and mercy:
Mercy = Not getting what one deserves

Grace = Getting what one does not deserve
But you could define injustice with the same definitions.
Injustice = Not getting what one deserves

Injustice = Getting what one does not deserve
A definition of grace and mercy that is identical to the definition of injustice is problematical for Catholics, to say the least.

Could you give us a better definition of grace and mercy than this, a definition of grace and mercy that cannot also be used to define injustice? Could you give us a definition for grace and mercy that includes a reference to moral behavior? Once you do that, I think that you will begin to understand the Catholic doctrines of saving grace, and why Catholics insist that justification cannot be separated from sanctification as the Protestants are wont to do.
 
I realize that, as evidenced above, there are many routes this theological discussion can take. This should be expected, as not everything is really simple, although some try to argue that it has to be.

That being said, whenever I start to reconcile all the different views of justification, sanctification, and ultimately salvation I think of this verse:

Luke 9:23-24 (NIV) Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.”

Therefore, to be with Jesus in Heaven, we must “follow him” there, or become his disciple daily. Not some days, but every day, repenting when we fall. It really boils down to being a disciple of Jesus. The theological debate will ensue, but if we are sincerely trying to be a disciple, constantly fighting our own passions, we will follow him.

I am not suggesting that this topic should not be discussed further. To the contrary, I believe it is indeed necessary. I know these points have already been made, but it’s one of my favorite verses, and brings me comfort. This is, as I understand it, what the Catholic position comes down to.
 
40.png
Socrates4Jesus:
I suppose i’m one of the sane ones?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, are you? Where do you stand in the Lordship Controversy?
I’d have to disagree with the idea that all Protestants consider faith as mere intellectual assent.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that ALL Protestants believe that saving faith is mere intellectual assent, I said that SOME Protestants believe this (even though they might deny it). Saving faith for a Protestant that believes in the antinomian flavor of OSAS can be reduced to a bare minimum of mere intellectual assent to theological propositions about the expiation for sin. This the type of dead faith that James condemns, since even demons believe in God. Dead faith cannot merit eternal life.

Note that I am NOT saying that all antinomian OSAS believing Protestants possess nothing more than the dead faith of mere intellectual assent. I am saying that they believe that they could have nothing more than dead faith and still be saved. Catholics deny that that is even possible, and that is the basis for the Lordship Controversy. Where do you stand in the Lordship Controversy? When a Christian says that Jesus is Lord, what is that supposed to mean?

Can a person be “saved” that does not have Jesus as his Lord? If a Christian willfully chooses disobedience to God over obedience to God, will he earn the wages of sin?
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Your definitions of grace and mercy aren’t so much wrong as they are inadequate. For example you have tried to make a distinction in your definitions for grace and mercy:Mercy = Not getting what one deserves

Grace = Getting what one does not deserve

But you could define injustice with the same definitions.Injustice = Not getting what one deserves

Injustice = Getting what one does not deserve

A definition of grace and mercy that is identical to the definition of injustice is problematical for Catholics, to say the least.

Could you give us a better definition of grace and mercy than this, a definition of grace and mercy that cannot also be used to define injustice? Could you give us a definition for grace and mercy that includes a reference to moral behavior? Once you do that, I think that you will begin to understand the Catholic doctrines of saving grace, and why Catholics insist that justification cannot be separated from sanctification as the Protestants are wont to do.
Click to expand...
Well, i think the most profound act of injustice was demonstrated when the Son of God, who never committed even one sin, suffered the most painful death man ever devised to pay the price for you & me.

As a father, i cannot imagine allowing my oldest son to suffer for others who are guilty & deserve judgment. Hence, i cannot fathom why our Father in heaven did this for you & me. There is just something amazing & beyond reason about His love.

So, i’ll give you a better definition of grace & mercy if you will explain why Christ’s suffering for us was not unjust! Or do you think He deserved this?

😛
 
40.png
Socrates4Jesus:
So, i’ll give you a better definition of grace & mercy if you will explain why Christ’s suffering for us was not unjust!
😛
Click to expand...
I don’t think any Christian would say that that was justified…but it had to happen none the less…
 
Steve M:
That’s what I mean. Notice Paul talks about obligation in the first verse. He’s contrasting the obligation with the gift. The gift is available to all, but we have to live accordingly. Are we going to be perfect? Absolutely not, but God knows our heart. If you read the next verse in the Ephesians passage it says man is created for good works. Jesus tells the rich young man he has to follow the commandments. James 2:24 says were justified by our works and not by faith alone. The works of Jesus, and his sacrifice provide initial justification. Without that, we’d all be doomed. His sacrifice opens up our access to the grace of God. That’s my understanding of it. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
I’m leery of taking your view of these Scriptures. The Bible warns us:

“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you a prove you a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

I might understand how we should add the words “apart from faith” to one of the passages if they were contained in the other three. However, for St. Paul to leave these words out four times seems more intentional than unintentional.

Would you agree?
 
E.E.N.S.:
I don’t think any Christian would say that that was justified…but it had to happen none the less…
Click to expand...
I agree, EENS! & i’m sure you agree that we do not justly deserve the mercy & grace God shows to us.

But i still am wondering whether the Bible teaches that our good works, done in faith in Christ, merit our salvation.
 
40.png
Socrates4Jesus:
… i’ll give you a better definition of grace & mercy if you will explain why Christ’s suffering for us was not unjust!

It was unjust for guilty men to condemn an innocent man to death. But it was not unjust for the innocent man to redeem the guilty men. Redeem means to buy back, and a price had to be paid to purchase the freedom of the justly condemned. God set the price for remption. It would have been unjust to not pay the price necessary of redemption, and God is not a thief.

God’s mercy is not* opposed * to his justice, and mercy has no meaning apart from justice.

Now how about those new definitions of grace and mercy?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Socrates4Jesus:
Not sure what that means …
Click to expand...
It means: “Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Matt. 7:21)”

Socrates4Jesus, where do you stand in the Lordship Controversy?
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
It was unjust for guilty men to condemn an innocent man to death. But it was not unjust for the innocent man to redeem the guilty men. Redeem means to buy back, and a price had to be paid to purchase the freedom of the justly condemned. God set the price for remption. It would have been unjust to not pay the price necessary of redemption, and God is not a thief.

God’s mercy is not* opposed *to his justice, and mercy has no meaning apart from justice.

Now how about those new definitions of grace and mercy?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, i think we are thinking different things when we use the word justice. To me, justice is getting what one deserves. I do not see how Jesus deserved what He got.

Also, we don’t seem to see eye-to-eye when you say, “It would have been unjust not to pay the price of redemption.” My thinking is that God the Father would have been completely justified in allowing us all to go to hell to suffer the punishment we deserve. But then, i agree with Martin Luther that i’m just a pile of dung who is amazed that God would want to clean me up at all!

😃

May we agree to disagree on this one point?
 
40.png
Socrates4Jesus:
I’m leery of taking your view of these Scriptures. The Bible warns us:

“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you a prove you a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

I might understand how we should add the words “apart from faith” to one of the passages if they were contained in the other three. However, for St. Paul to leave these words out four times seems more intentional than unintentional.

Would you agree?
Click to expand...
My fault. I didn’t read all of them, I just scanned them. I didn’t realize you had added anything to each of them. I was looking at the obligagation and wage comments. If you pull verses out of context, you’ll lose the full meaning. As I mentioned earlier, Paul said we’re made for good works. Jesus says to follow the commandments, and James says were justified by works not faith alone. So we know works are necessary, but how does that jive with what Paul teaches. What I was saying is, if you read Paul some of his teachings seem to contradict himself. Why mention that we’re made for good works when he just mentioned that works weren’t important. If you read Paul’s writings and look at the obligation he talks about, then look at how he approaches grace, you’ll see what I say about the gift. How do you receive the gift? Have faith. What makes that faith more than just intellectual? We do the good deeds because of our faith, and God, out of his grace gives us salvation.

This is where the second chapter of James comes in. It clearly says you have to have works. Paul says Abraham was justified apart from the law, thus apart from the obligation. James says Abraham was justified for what he did. There you see the difference in the obligation and the grace.

If you Keep in mind that Paul generally uses the terms works, law, works of the law referring to the Jewish law. He often uses good works when referring to good deeds. Pauls view of legal obligation as opposed to the gift of grace is not in conflict with James if it is understood that the God’s gift to us is because we demonstrate our faith.

As far as adding things to scripture. It was Martin Luther who added the word alone after faith in order to teach his new docrtine. Faith alone only appears once in the entire Bible, James 2:24, and it say you’re justified by works and not by faith alone.
 
40.png
Socrates4Jesus:
Rather, the good deeds are only the consequence of receiving that gift. They are not the reason for eternal life, they are only the result of it.
Click to expand...
If we were on autopilot, that would make sense. This ties in with some of the deeper questions of free will. You see, you still have to decide to do the good works. It’s a deep mystery no question. God is also a mysterious to us.

What does your spiritual sense tell you? Are you so sure we have no free will to do works that you would leave the Catholic Church for a lesser theory. I mean we can play word games all day but was Luther so enlightened that his theological ideas on faith are better than Catholic? I see what you say about works my spiritual sense tells me that’s not the spirit of the Bible. The Bible makes it clear you have to have both and non one disagrees on that.

Just like a free will discussion we had, we found that these questions send us away humbled before God because we don’t fully understand it. However, I accept that we have free will because it is taught in Scripture and by the Church that is most familiar with Scripture - the Catholic Church.

So we all agree faith and works are needed. How you want to slice and dice cause and effects is up to you, you can argue and philosophize for centuries. However, what you should really do is follow your spiritual sense and go where God leads you and eliminate any prejudices against the Catholic Church that have been taught you by a tradition of Protestant men.

Shocking huh? Never thought of it that way! Yes, Protestants, interpret the Bible according to their own tradition and they hand their own traditions down the generations just like Catholics. The key is that the Catholic Church has the familiarity with the language styles and expressions of the Bible (the “personality” of the Bible if you will) so they can more readily express the truth of the intention and this truth once seen is readily apparent.

Faith vs. Works, the Catholic Answer - you need both, period. The rest can be philosophized about for centuries but it’s no excuse to leave the Catholic Church.

Greg
 
40.png
Socrates4Jesus:
Hmmm, i think we are thinking different things when we use the word justice. To me, justice is getting what one deserves.
Click to expand...
How is God justified in taking a sinner into Heaven? That is what Paul’s doctrine of Justification is all about.

Was it just for guilty men to condemn an innocent man to death? No. They were unjust because that innocent life was not theirs to take. Was God able to take this unjust action of men and use it as a fulfillment of the Law? Of course he can - God can write straight with crooked lines.

Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it, and the Law demanded sacrifice for sin. It was God that demanded that his chosen people were to offer sacrifices for sin. And these millions of animal sacrifices were all lessons pointing to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. The bloody sacrifices for sin offerings were lessons that God takes sin seriously, a lesson that Protestants often deny in their effort to cling to false “faith alone” and “eternal security” doctrines.

Jesus is both the high priest that offers the sacrifice and he is the acceptable sacrifice for sin. Jesus is not offering an unjust sacrifice for the expiation of the sins of the world!
Also, we don’t seem to see eye-to-eye when you say, “It would have been unjust not to pay the price of redemption.” My thinking is that God the Father would have been completely justified in allowing us all to go to hell to suffer the punishment we deserve.
Click to expand...
How could God the Father be just in rejecting the pure and holy Sacrifice offered by his Son for the forgiveness of sins?
May we agree to disagree on this one point?
Click to expand...
It is disagreement on this point that has led Protestants to develop their bad theologies of forensic justification and OSAS!

These forums do not exist so that you can blithely ignore questions that you find difficult. That indicates arrogance and contempt for the person asking the questions. I know that I have asked you difficult questions, and if you are honest about learning, you will answer my questions to the best of your ability. Don’t forget, we remember you stringing us along not so long ago by pretending that you were here to learn, only to find out that you had a hidden agenda all along.

We are willing to give you another chance. How about playing it straight with us?

Please answer ALL the questions that I have directed to you to the best of your ability, before you ask more questions. It is the just thing to do! 😃

If you can’t do that, we should resurrect your last thread, and you can answer the questions that you left unanswered there.
 
Sorry to bring this up but earlier in the thread I saw this:
How do you know what Books belong in the Bible, why aren’t all of St. Pauls letters in the Canon?
Click to expand...
Are there other letters of St. Paul that are in the Canon? For real?
:confused:
 
40.png
Socrates4Jesus:
I’m leery of taking your view of these Scriptures. The Bible warns us:

“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you a prove you a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

I might understand how we should add the words “apart from faith” to one of the passages if they were contained in the other three. However, for St. Paul to leave these words out four times seems more intentional than unintentional.

Would you agree?
Click to expand...
Yes, however, Paul also says his oral words are those of God’s as well…
 
40.png
Faith_is_First:
Sorry to bring this up but earlier in the thread I saw this:

Are there other letters of St. Paul that are in the Canon? For real?
:confused:
Click to expand...
1Corinthians mentions the previous letter that Paul sent to Corinth. We don’t have that earlier letter of Paul in the Bible.
 
Here’s a few Pauline passages for you.

Romans 2:13 “For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.”

Romans 3:30-31 “for God is one and will justify the curcumcised on the basis of their faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contraty, we are supporting the law”

Romans 2:5-8 “By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgement of God who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.”

Paul even supports works, just not under the pretense that God is obligated to give us anything. Through is grace, he gives us salvation, because of our works done out of faith.
 
40.png
Socrates4Jesus:
I agree, EENS! & i’m sure you agree that we do not justly deserve the mercy & grace God shows to us.

But i still am wondering whether the Bible teaches that our good works, done in faith in Christ, merit our salvation.
Click to expand...
It’s not that they merit them, but when I said that obedience is the last rung…Is when Jesus said if you can’t love him with all your heart, then you must as least be obedient to his law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top