Protestants reforming ?

[JonNC]

You keep missing the point. Just because you don’t use the word “earn” does not change the reality of what you are doing. The Catholic church teaches that Justification is a process. This process according to Roman Catholics involves your actions along with Gods action. So your justification moves away from what Jesus has done for you and onto what your doing.

I generally agree with what you’re saying, but just for fun…

When I was confirmed, these were the words:
The Father in heaven, for Jesus’ sake, renew and increase in you the gift of the Holy Spirit, to your strengthening in faith, to your growing in grace, to your patience in suffering, and to the blessed hope of everlasting life.

These are words, essentially, of sanctification. We do work out are salvation in fear and trembling. If I am to grow in grace, am I not responding and participating, with the help and encouragement of the Holy Spirit? Is it not then also true to say that if we are growing in grace, that a process is involved? Sure, we distinguish between justification and sanctification (justification comes by grace through faith, a free gift we cannot earn), but it isn’t it also true that “there is no justification without sanctification”?

Jon

 

[pablope]

I don’t think he is saying anything that is out of school. I am an ex cradle Catholic and I had precisely this same discussion with my parish priest approx. 10 years ago and he said himself that grace alone by faith alone was heretical.

**JPeter and I both know that this is wrong. **

To stay in God’s grace requires work from the Holy Spirit that far exceeds what we can do for ourselves. It is because of the cross that we HAVE ALREADY been saved.

How did you and Jpeter come to the conclusion that it is wrong? Did you decide it is wrong? Or did someone tell you that it is wrong?

Either way, whether it was your conclusion or somebody else, where did you get the authority to declare the teaching of the Catholic church is wrong?

To whom did you submit to tell you that the teaching you espouse is correct?

Could it be that you are the one who is in error instead? Have you looked at that possibility?

Have you applied this verse to determine the truth of what you believe:

From 1john4:6…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

 

[pablope]

The Lutheran view of sola fide is completely inline with the Anglican formularies. We would not go as far as your confessions do in everything though. **With that being said I believe the Lutheran confessions are mostly correct. **Like the Lutheran Confessions are binding for Lutherans, the Anglican formularies are binding for Anglicans. If an Anglican denies sola fide, then he is not an Anglican. There are a lot of Churches that have the Anglican name on the outside but not the Anglican faith on the inside.

How do you know that? Did you decide that for yourself? Or are you taking somebody’s declaration they are true? And where did that authority come from to declare they are correct?

 

[Patrick_GOC]

I am not sure what the point of the link is but it appears to mock confession and made with that intent. To answer your question, protestantism has split off in about 20,000 different churches, denominations and view points since the 1500. The splintering of protestantism shows the fallacy of sola scripture (and the other sola’s) in that people read different things in the Bible, then build a church or denomination around it. If you are serious about learning about the Catholic Church and what it teaches, I would not go to youtube to get your information . The video is made to mock Catholic church in the middle ages. It is inaccurate and false and sad.

I did not bother to read but protestants are still protestants! They reject Apostolic tradition and authority and their protest is still against the One True God!
As St. Polycarp said several hundred hears ago to Arius (one of the first protestant heretics) “You are the first born of Satan!” Heresy is Heresy whether yesterday or a thousand years ago!

 

[Patrick_GOC]

from the lutheran side, i don’t think there’s any compromise as all, just a better mutual understanding.

Edit: Seeing some of the strong reactions, i’m going to go back and read it again, but my first impression was that the catholic church really defined their viewpoint to encompas a more lutheran view.

lutherans need to fall to their knees and beg for god’s forgiveness in that they have led so many astray!
Ecumenism=heresy!

 

[JonNC]

lutherans need to fall to their knees and beg for god’s forgiveness in that they have led so many astray!
Ecumenism=heresy!

Catholic Catechism

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church -** for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”**269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

The Answer to your charge is yes, in the same amount as Catholics.

Jon

 

[JPeter]

Actually, enickman is 100% correct. You’re just not understanding. We don’t work FOR salvation. But we “work” to KEEP salvation. Unless you believe in “once saved, always saved,” which we don’t. I can go ahead and quote a whole lot of Scripture if you want.

-Chris

You can quote them if you would like. I do not see the essential difference in what your saying. Whether you work for salvation or to keep salvation does not change that fact that your making good works a part of Justification rather than the result. Your deeds do not justify you before God nor do they keep you Justified.

We can refuse God’s free gift of salvation and we can fall away as a result. But this does not make your argument flow because IT IS FINISHED!

 

[GKC]

The Lutheran view of sola fide is completely inline with the Anglican formularies. We would not go as far as your confessions do in everything though. With that being said I believe the Lutheran confessions are mostly correct. Like the Lutheran Confessions are binding for Lutherans, the Anglican formularies are binding for Anglicans. If an Anglican denies sola fide, then he is not an Anglican. There are a lot of Churches that have the Anglican name on the outside but not the Anglican faith on the inside.

Which Anglican formulary are you thinking of, which would make sola fide de fide for Anglicans, generally, definitively?

GKC

 

[cmforte]

You can quote them if you would like. I do not see the essential difference in what your saying. Whether you work for salvation or to keep salvation does not change that fact that your making good works a part of Justification rather than the result. Your deeds do not justify you before God nor do they keep you Justified.

We can refuse God’s free gift of salvation and we can fall away as a result. But this does not make your argument flow because IT IS FINISHED!

So you believe in “once saved, always saved”? If you’re a Sola Scriptura christian then lets do our dueling Scripture verse recitals.

-Chris

 

[JPeter]

Which Anglican formulary are you thinking of, which would make sola fide de fide for Anglicans, generally, definitively?

GKC

GKC? I have seen these initials before. Are you a Bishop? I have included here a link to the homily on justification from the Book of Homilies which is the most straight-forward statement of Anglican doctrine on the subject, including many references not just to the Scriptures but to the Fathers. I do not think we can read the book of common prayer or any of the Anglican reformers and come to a different view. Hooker might have had a broader understanding but he would have never objected to sola fide. anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom03.htm

I apologize if you are a Bishop.

 

[JPeter]

So you believe in “once saved, always saved”? If you’re a Sola Scriptura christian then lets do our dueling Scripture verse recitals.

-Chris

I am not a sola scriptura christian nor do I believe in once saved always saved, but your running around my statements and not showing anything to the contrary. Give me your best that’s how we learn.

 

[GKC]

GKC? I have seen these initials before. Are you a Bishop? I have included here a link to the homily on justification from the Book of Homilies which is the most straight-forward statement of Anglican doctrine on the subject, including many references not just to the Scriptures but to the Fathers. I do not think we can read the book of common prayer or any of the Anglican reformers and come to a different view. Hooker might have had a broader understanding but he would have never objected to sola fide. anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom03.htm

I apologize if you are a Bishop.

You are very kind to be concerned, but no need. I am no bishop. Those initials (which have been seen on this board, over the years, from time to time, here and there), represent an author whose works I have collected for around 48 years.

I am familiar with the Homilies. What makes you cite them as definitive and normative,
de fide, for Anglicans, generally?

GKC

 

[cmforte]

I am not a sola scriptura christian nor do I believe in once saved always saved, but your running around my statements and not showing anything to the contrary. Give me your best that’s how we learn.

I answered you directly. Tell me what it is you don’t understand then we’ll go from there.

-Chris

 

[enickman]

I am not a sola scriptura christian nor do I believe in once saved always saved, but your running around my statements and not showing anything to the contrary. Give me your best that’s how we learn.

What exactly do you believe then? From what you have said you sound like you believe in once saved always saved.

 

[JPeter]

What exactly do you believe then? From what you have said you sound like you believe in once saved always saved.

What I think does not really matter I am subject to a higher authority.
Baptism is the mark of our election. It is an objective sign, independent of us, that God has chosen us and will never abandon us. Yet there are many people who are baptized who reject the Christian faith. How can this be? Doesn’t this violate the promise? Not at all. God does not abandon those whom He has chosen. A person who has been baptized has already been given the saving grace of Jesus Christ, even if that person walks away from the faith. Nevertheless, if a person rejects that grace, they effectively reject their election. This does not mean that God has abandoned them. Far from it! They have, however, chosen to abandon God. There is no work that you can do to earn your salvation. It is given to you absolutely freely by God. The only work you can choose to do, if you wish, is to reject the free gift that you have been given. We are not required to say “yes” to God or to cast a vote in favor of our own salvation. If we want to cast a vote at all, the only one available to us is “no.” We are either the passive recipients of God’s saving grace or we actively reject it.

While this way of understanding election leaves a great deal unexplained, it does accord with the teaching of Scripture and the Church. In Matthew 13, Jesus tells the parable of the sower and the seeds, indicating that there are some who will fall away. In Hebrews 6, we hear about how difficult, even impossible, it is to be returned to repentance if you have “fallen away.” And throughout the New Testament, there is language about perseverance and following the course to the end. None of this makes any sense if it is impossible for a person to reject the grace given in election.

 

[JPeter]

I answered you directly. Tell me what it is you don’t understand then we’ll go from there.

-Chris

I showed in my last post that I do not believe in once saved always saved or rather that Classical Anglicanism rejects it. What I do not understand is how you can view Justification as a process and then say that we do not earn salvation. I am not a Catholic and do not claim to be an expert on Catholocism, but to me your understanding of Justification slaps Jesus in the face. It is like saying you did not do enough and I have to make up for it. I believe that Jesus is the sole Justifier not myself by anything that I am doing. I do believe we can reject salvation both the scriptures and the father s make this clear. Prevenient grace is entirely free and unelicited and unearned. Without it coming to us as an unearned and entirely free gift, we would remain mired in sin. The gift is normally bestowed upon us by God at baptism. The new life of grace begun thereby is nourished and fed by the normal means of grace (the other sacraments, prayer, etc.), and expresses itself through our life in the world. Good works do not earn salvation, but are not optional. They are the appropriate, grateful, loving response of redeemed sinners to the free love they have received.

 

[enickman]

What I think does not really matter I am subject to a higher authority.
Baptism is the mark of our election. It is an objective sign, independent of us, that God has chosen us and will never abandon us. Yet there are many people who are baptized who reject the Christian faith. How can this be? Doesn’t this violate the promise? Not at all. God does not abandon those whom He has chosen. A person who has been baptized has already been given the saving grace of Jesus Christ, even if that person walks away from the faith. Nevertheless, if a person rejects that grace, they effectively reject their election. This does not mean that God has abandoned them. Far from it! They have, however, chosen to abandon God. There is no work that you can do to earn your salvation. It is given to you absolutely freely by God. The only work you can choose to do, if you wish, is to reject the free gift that you have been given. We are not required to say “yes” to God or to cast a vote in favor of our own salvation. If we want to cast a vote at all, the only one available to us is “no.” We are either the passive recipients of God’s saving grace or we actively reject it.

While this way of understanding election leaves a great deal unexplained, it does accord with the teaching of Scripture and the Church. In Matthew 13, Jesus tells the parable of the sower and the seeds, indicating that there are some who will fall away. In Hebrews 6, we hear about how difficult, even impossible, it is to be returned to repentance if you have “fallen away.” And throughout the New Testament, there is language about perseverance and following the course to the end. None of this makes any sense if it is impossible for a person to reject the grace given in election.

Okay. I realize some reject God’s gift. But what do you think about people who accept it? Do you think they are set for life?

 

[JPeter]

Okay. I realize some reject God’s gift. But what do you think about people who accept it? Do you think they are set for life?

The Acceptance of Christ or decision theology is a baptoevangelical doctrine and runs contrary to Anglicanism. When Anglicans say we are saved by faith alone, we do not mean faith=a decision that we make. We believe that God has chosen us and that we are predestined. This doesn’t mean we agree with the Calvinist understanding of double predestination. We believe that we are free to reject that our salvation at any time. But we would not agree with the Armenian belief that we have free will to come to God before our Baptism or the Holy Spirit coming to us first. God comes to us and saves us. So it is a very comforting doctrine. I do not wonder if this faith that I have is genuine or not and I do not wonder if I have done enough good deeds to be saved. I was baptized, I receive the Eucharist. I do not run from these promises that God has made me but I come back to them in true repentance. I am saved by grace alone through faith alone. 100 percent God working in me 0 percent me working for God. We can reject Christ but we cannot come to Him unless He first comes to us by His chosen instruments. The Sacraments and the Gospel.

 

[SteveVH]

I showed in my last post that I do not believe in once saved always saved or rather that Classical Anglicanism rejects it. What I do not understand is how you can view Justification as a process and then say that we do not earn salvation. I am not a Catholic and do not claim to be an expert on Catholocism, but to me your understanding of Justification slaps Jesus in the face. It is like saying you did not do enough and I have to make up for it. I believe that Jesus is the sole Justifier not myself by anything that I am doing. I do believe we can reject salvation both the scriptures and the father s make this clear. Prevenient grace is entirely free and unelicited and unearned. Without it coming to us as an unearned and entirely free gift, we would remain mired in sin. The gift is normally bestowed upon us by God at baptism. The new life of grace begun thereby is nourished and fed by the normal means of grace (the other sacraments, prayer, etc.), and expresses itself through our life in the world. Good works do not earn salvation, but are not optional. They are the appropriate, grateful, loving response of redeemed sinners to the free love they have received.

As a Catholic I have never viewed justification as a process. I was saved the moment I was baptized. From then on salvation is mine to loose and I must persevere to the end. As you have stated, I am free to reject God’s grace. Baptism does not cause us to loose our free will. There are many ways to reject God’s grace. One of those is ambivalence towards the Grace given. While our works, in and of themselves, can bring us no closer to heaven, our acceptance of our baptismal grace is demonstrated and accomplished in works of mercy, works of charity, and participation in the sacraments. We must not only accept the grace, we must respond to grace by doing the very work that Jesus did, through the Church. If we do not, we have rejected grace and have not allowed it to transform us. When Christ commanded the Apostles to go out and make discliples of all nations he called the Church into action. Thus the wisdom of James in saying that “faith without works is dead”. Faith and works are inseperable. So I certainly don’t think you hold to OSAS and I think we are about as close in belief on this subject as we could be.

 

[cmforte]

I showed in my last post that I do not believe in once saved always saved or rather that Classical Anglicanism rejects it. What I do not understand is how you can view Justification as a process and then say that we do not earn salvation. I am not a Catholic and do not claim to be an expert on Catholocism, but to me your understanding of Justification slaps Jesus in the face. It is like saying you did not do enough and I have to make up for it. I believe that Jesus is the sole Justifier not myself by anything that I am doing.

Salvation is not a one time event. You don’t say a prayer or get baptized and puff!! You’re going to heaven!! Man is fallen and will sin, and when one who accepted Christ through faith mortally sins, that one then rejects that gift of grace and loses salvation, and therefore needs to (sincerely) repent again and try to avoid sin as best as he can, which some may consider “work.” So, since man will mortally sin and needs continual repentance, salvation is a process. That is what is meant. Justification sets us apart as now acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, but once we are set apart or “justified” we have a responsibility to do our part to keep it. You don’t earn it, but you must keep it. The Holy Spirit helps us in this process.

I do believe we can reject salvation both the scriptures and the father s make this clear. Prevenient grace is entirely free and unelicited and unearned. Without it coming to us as an unearned and entirely free gift, we would remain mired in sin. The gift is normally bestowed upon us by God at baptism. The new life of grace begun thereby is nourished and fed by the normal means of grace (the other sacraments, prayer, etc.), and expresses itself through our life in the world. Good works do not earn salvation, but are not optional. They are the appropriate, grateful, loving response of redeemed sinners to the free love they have received.

I see nothing that contradicts Catholic teaching here. The RCC says we are saved by faith and works, in other words, we don’t earn salvation by good works, but, in your words, they are not optional, and the RCC teaches we can reject salvation, as you also said. It almost appears we are just arguing over semantics at this point.

-Chris