Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[PRmerger]

I see…but why would someone need to affirm and confirm what the church says if the church is never mistaken in its proclamations?

Because, cloudman, Scripture is the Word of God.

“In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. (1 Thes 2:13) In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”–CCC 104

 

[cloudman]

What good fruit did the Thief on the Cross have?

It is quite evident that he had the fear of the Lord based on his rebuke of the other thief. It is also clear that this man was broken seeing that he admitted that his sentence was just. We know that the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit and that is exactly what the thief showed. He also advocated the righteousness of Christ in the midst of the whole world mocking Him.

There are many people who would be focused on their own suffering, and would have cared less about defending the man next to him. This thief, however, in the midst of some of the most excruciating pain known to man sided against himself and the rest of the world and with God. If that is not fruit, then I don’t what is.

 

[PRmerger]

It is quite evident that he had the fear of the Lord based on his rebuke of the other thief. It is also clear that this man was broken seeing that he admitted that his sentence was just. We know that the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit and that is exactly what the thief showed. He also advocated the righteousness of Christ in the midst of the whole world mocking Him.

There are many people who would be focused on their own suffering, and would have cared less about defending the man next to him. This thief, however, in the midst of some of the most excruciating pain known to man sided against himself and the rest of the world and with God. If that is not fruit, then I don’t what is.

And all of these good works occurred BEFORE he accepted Jesus into his heart, yes?

Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.”Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.

How is it that these fruits occurred before he was saved?

Yet these fruits are to be a sign of one’s salvation?

That does not make sense to me–does it to you, couldman?

 

[cloudman]

And all of these good works occurred BEFORE he accepted Jesus into his heart, yes?

Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.”Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.

How is it that these fruits occurred before he was saved?

Yet these fruits are to be a sign of one’s salvation?

That does not make sense to me–does it to you, couldman?

Why do you assume that is when he became saved?

 

[pablope]

My contention with Roman Catholicism is not that Roman Catholicism teaches that the saints have works to go along with their faith. This is in fact Biblical. ** My major contention with Roman Catholicism is the teaching that our faith and works tack onto the finished work of Christ.**

I apologize in advance if this has been responded too.

This is a misunderstanding on your part. We do not add to the finished work of Christ…but we produce the life of Christ in us…to suffer for our brethen…to love…No. It means that Christ’s suffering and death must be reproduced and filled up in the Church and if some are slacking off, that means others must become more like victim-souls, willing to bear a greater burden, willing to shoulder with love, as Galatians 5 speaks about the love, “Love bears one another’s burdens.” We do that just as 1st John 5 speaks about how we can pray for others and get them back on track after their venial sins have been committed. So likewise we can suffer on behalf of others. That’s what fathers and mothers do all the time. And God calls us to do that in the supernatural family, as well, on behalf of our brothers and sisters and our spiritual children, as well. That’s what Paul takes for granted when he makes such an outlandish statement. Outlandish only for those who do not recognize the essential need for suffering. (catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0091.html)

Well why don’t we look at a Biblical example? I’d say what David did with Bathsheba and Uriah was quite a grave sin. What is David’s prayer in Psalm 51?

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you assume that is when he became saved?

Well, the Catholic position is that you’re not saved until you* die,* and you see the beatific vision.

Your position seems to me–correct me, please–that you are saved when you accept Jesus into your heart.

So when do you believe the Good Thief was saved?

 

[cloudman]

I apologize in advance if this has been responded too.

This is a misunderstanding on your part. We do not add to the finished work of Christ…but we produce the life of Christ in us…to suffer for our brethen…to love…No. It means that Christ’s suffering and death must be reproduced and filled up in the Church and if some are slacking off, that means others must become more like victim-souls, willing to bear a greater burden, willing to shoulder with love, as Galatians 5 speaks about the love, “Love bears one another’s burdens.” We do that just as 1st John 5 speaks about how we can pray for others and get them back on track after their venial sins have been committed. So likewise we can suffer on behalf of others. That’s what fathers and mothers do all the time. And God calls us to do that in the supernatural family, as well, on behalf of our brothers and sisters and our spiritual children, as well. That’s what Paul takes for granted when he makes such an outlandish statement. Outlandish only for those who do not recognize the essential need for suffering. (catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0091.html)

You should read 2Samuel 12 first…

5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.” …**13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.”

Nathan replied, “The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. **14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the LORD, the son born to you will die.”

15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill.

This event precedes Psalm 51.

Why would David pray for the Lord not to take away the Holy Spirit from him? That does not sound like the prayer of someone who has assurance of salvation. That sounds like the prayer of someone who fears that they might suffer the same fate as Saul, who in fact did have the Holy Spirit taken from him.

Also, the fact that Nathan said what he did does not guarantee that David actually immediately took it to heart. David still had to come to grips with his sin. David probably experienced what the author of Hebrews spoke of in Hebrews 10:26-27.

 

[cloudman]

Well, the Catholic position is that you’re not saved until you* die,* and you see the beatific vision.

Your position seems to me–correct me, please–that you are saved when you accept Jesus into your heart.

So when do you believe the Good Thief was saved?

When I use that language I am referring to justification. It is evident to me that the thief trusted Christ before he asked the question. I don’t think scripture is clear on the exact moment that the thief was saved, but it would have to be before he made any of those comments. His comments reflect that he already trusted Christ prior to asking Jesus to remember him.

 

[LegoGE1947]

The greater tragedy is not having any way to know whether or not you’re one of the ones He died for.

This is a weakness of the Jehovah Witness faith. They believe that 144,000 of their numbers will be in heaven. Which 144,000 will it be?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

This is a weakness of the Jehovah Witness faith. They believe that 144,000 of their numbers will be in heaven. Which 144,000 will it be?

Indeed. I can’t imagine a more dismal doctrine than limited atonement.

 

[cloudman]

Because, cloudman, Scripture is the Word of God.

“In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. (1 Thes 2:13) In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”–CCC 104

So when I read 1 Timothy 2:5 that there is one mediator between God and man…is the person reading scripture supposed to read it with the presupposition that it can’t say anything that the CC would disagree with? Therefore just ignore that verse and just keep believing that Mary is co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces because that is what tradition teaches?

 

[PRmerger]

It is evident to me that the thief trusted Christ before he asked the question. I don’t think scripture is clear on the exact moment that the thief was saved, but it would have to be before he made any of those comments. His comments reflect that he already trusted Christ prior to asking Jesus to remember him.

This is begging the question, though, isn’t it?

You’re asserting that one bears good fruit after one is saved.

And here you’re saying he’s already saved when he rebukes the other thief.

How do you know? Based on what?

 

[PRmerger]

So when I read 1 Timothy 2:5 that there is one mediator between God and man…is the person reading scripture supposed to read it with the presupposition that it can’t say anything that the CC would disagree with? Therefore just ignore that verse and just keep believing that Mary is co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces because that is what tradition teaches?

You ought to understand it in the same way you do when you read that Paul says that HE saves us.

And in the same way you do when you read that Paul states that we save OURSELVES.

Yep, folks, it’s true, Paul says that HE saves. Right here:

To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak.
I have become all things to all, to save at least some.-1 Cor 9:22

And, here is where the inspired writer says we save OURSELVES:

Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.–1 Timothy 4:16

You don’t have a problem with those verses, I presume?

So I think that you can simply apply your acceptance of those verses–Paul is a co-redeemer, as well as we are co-redeemers.

So why not Mary?

 

[cloudman]

This is begging the question, though, isn’t it?

You’re asserting that one bears good fruit after one is saved.

And here you’re saying he’s already saved when he rebukes the other thief.

How do you know? Based on what?

He tells the other thief that Jesus was sinless. So he already trusts the righteousness of Christ before he tells Jesus to remember him.

He tells the other thief that both of their sentences are just. Therefore he already trusts the justice of God before he tells Jesus to remember him.

Then when he tells Jesus to remember him that reveals his trust in the grace of God. That is simply the first place where we see him express his trust in Christ, but ultimately scripture doesn’t tell us the exact moment that the thief was justified. I believe that it was prior to his remarks to the other thief because that would explain the fruitfulness of the words that the thief spoke.

 

[PRmerger]

He tells the other thief that Jesus was sinless. So he already trusts the righteousness of Christ before he tells Jesus to remember him.

This is interesting, cloudman.

If a Muslim acknowledges that Jesus is sinless, he is saved?

 

[PRmerger]

I believe that it was prior to his remarks to the other thief because that would explain the fruitfulness of the words that the thief spoke.

And, again, then you are begging the question, cloudman.

You have been asked to demonstrate how the Good Thief, after being saved, showed good fruits.

And you answer by saying, “He showed good works, thus he was saved.”

How do you know that his good works are the result of his justification?

 

[PRmerger]

This is interesting, cloudman.

If a Muslim acknowledges that Jesus is sinless, he is saved?

Just so you know, cloudman, Islam does declare that Jesus was sinless.

So be careful how you answer!

 

[cloudman]

You ought to understand it in the same way you do when you read that Paul says that HE saves us.

And in the same way you do when you read that Paul states that we save OURSELVES.

Yep, folks, it’s true, Paul says that HE saves. Right here:

To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak.
I have become all things to all, to save at least some.-1 Cor 9:22

And, here is where the inspired writer says we save OURSELVES:

Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.–1 Timothy 4:16

You don’t have a problem with those verses, I presume?

So I think that you can simply apply your acceptance of those verses–Paul is a co-redeemer, as well as we are co-redeemers.

So why not Mary?

I don’t have an issue with those verses. Paul was simply the instrument in the hand of God in the salvation process. He was simply the one who watered and planted, but ultimately God sends the messenger and the Holy Spirit indwells the messenger. And most importantly God ordains the good works that the saints walk in according to Ephesians 2:10.

So I understand Paul’s statements in that light. It is God’s ordaining of Paul to do those works and the Holy Spirit living inside of Paul generating those works within Paul that saves people. So I’ll chalk Paul’s statements up to relativity. It is a matter of perspective. From Paul’s perspective he actually was winning souls to the Lord. From a larger theological perspective, though Paul was simply an instrument in the hand of God. So, I see those statements as a matter of relativity and perspective.

 

[cloudman]

This is interesting, cloudman.

If a Muslim acknowledges that Jesus is sinless, he is saved?

Theoretical assent to doctrines and trusting in the person of Christ are two different things.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t have an issue with those verses. Paul was simply the instrument in the hand of God in the salvation process. He was simply the one who watered and planted, but ultimately God sends the messenger and the Holy Spirit indwells the messenger. And most importantly God ordains the good works that the saints walk in according to Ephesians 2:10.

So I understand Paul’s statements in that light. It is God’s ordaining of Paul to do those works and the Holy Spirit living inside of Paul generating those works within Paul that saves people. So I’ll chalk Paul’s statements up to relativity. It is a matter of perspective. From Paul’s perspective he actually was winning souls to the Lord. From a larger theological perspective, though Paul was simply an instrument in the hand of God. So, I see those statements as a matter of relativity and perspective.

'zactly, friend, exactly!

And now you can understand how Catholics “view those statements” with regard to Mary.

We understand them **in the same light **as you understand Paul saying that HE saves.

Nothing more and certainly nothing less.