Protestants: Tackle This

[Prodigal_Son1]

James 2:20 (“faith without works is dead”)
–We need to do “good works” as well as have faith.

This is what I believe that to mean:
When we have truely accepted Christ as our savior, the Holy Spirit comes to live within us. When that happens, I believe people have a desire to do good things for other people; to show the love of Christ to others. I don’t believe that we are required to do “good works”, because the Bible tells us that we are saved by faith NOT by works. We should be willing to do things for the Lord, but if we do not, I don’t believe that we’re not saved.
The fruits of the spirit are another thing that show that we have become a Christian, by those actions, people are able to see a change.
Now, some people seem to get the idea that they are always going to be more happy, kind, patient, and have more self control once they become a Christian; but that is false.

If all we have to do is have faith to be ‘saved’ and do nothing else, why did Paul tell us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling?

Php 2:12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

What do you think James meant by 2:24?

Jas 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas:
I mistyped: I should have said that 2 Peter 1 tell us that the Bibl is NOT for private undersanding (interpretation).

 

[Dokimas]

The Jews knew Old Testament scriptures. They were read to them at the Temple and synagogues.

2Ti 3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Christ was identifying Himself, through the prophesies, one last time. When He spoke those words, you know the Jews thought of Psalms 22.

**Psa 22:1 To the choirmaster: according to The Hind of the Dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
Psa 22:2 O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer; and by night, but find no rest.
Psa 22:3 Yet thou art holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel.
Psa 22:4 In thee our fathers trusted; they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
Psa 22:5 To thee they cried, and were saved; in thee they trusted, and were not disappointed.
Psa 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; scorned by men, and despised by the people.
Psa 22:7 All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads;
Psa 22:8 “He committed his cause to the LORD; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
Psa 22:9 Yet thou art he who took me from the womb; thou didst keep me safe upon my mother’s breasts.
Psa 22:10 Upon thee was I cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me thou hast been my God.
Psa 22:11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near and there is none to help.
Psa 22:12 Many bulls encompass me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me;
Psa 22:13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion.
Psa 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax, it is melted within my breast;
Psa 22:15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws; thou dost lay me in the dust of death.
Psa 22:16 Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet–
Psa 22:17 I can count all my bones-- they stare and gloat over me;
Psa 22:18 they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots.
Psa 22:19 But thou, O LORD, be not far off! O thou my help, hasten to my aid!
Psa 22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog!
Psa 22:21 Save me from the mouth of the lion, my afflicted soul from the horns of the wild oxen!
Psa 22:22 I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee:
Psa 22:23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! all you sons of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you sons of Israel!
Psa 22:24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.
Psa 22:25 From thee comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will pay before those who fear him.
Psa 22:26 The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD! May your hearts live for ever!
Psa 22:27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.
Psa 22:28 For dominion belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations.
Psa 22:29 Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and he who cannot keep himself alive.
Psa 22:30 Posterity shall serve him; men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation,
Psa 22:31 and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, that he has wrought it. **

I have agreed with you in my post. I think, as I’ve pointed out, there’s more to it than fulfilling the OT passage in Ps 22.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I mistyped: I should have said that 2 Peter 1 tell us that the Bibl is NOT for private undersanding (interpretation).

I hadn’t noticed, but I knew which one you were talking about. :whacky:

it’s late and I’m going to bed…we can pick back up tomorrow. Have a good night.

 

[larkin31]

You are mistaken, to put words into my mouth. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant inspired word of God. I believe Christ built a Church. I believe God has the power to protect His truth in His written word and the spoken word in His Church, even through fallible men. We have proof today.

So, are teachings and decisions of men fallible or not? You seem to be changing your answer now. earlier you said that these writings could have errors in them. Are you now saying that the writings and decisions of men are not fallible?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have agreed with you in my post. I think, as I’ve pointed out, there’s more to it than fulfilling the OT passage in Ps 22.

Yes. As I said, it wasn’t a debate type discussion. It just amazes me to see some of the prophesies and typology in the Old Testament.

Again, have a good night.

 

[Dokimas]

I hadn’t noticed, but I knew which one you were talking about. :whacky:

it’s late and I’m going to bed…we can pick back up tomorrow. Have a good night.

Good night, friend. God bless you and your family. BTW, please pray for my wife and her siblings and especially for my mother-in-law. Oh, Lord, please whisper love words to her heart.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, are teachings and decisions of men fallible or not? You seem to be changing your answer now. earlier you said that these writings could have errors in them. Are you now saying that the writings and decisions of men are not fallible?

No, I never said those writings can have errors in them. I believe God protected His word through the fallible men, just as He can protect His truth through His Church in spite of fallible men.

 

[SteveVH]

James 2:20 (“faith without works is dead”)
–We need to do “good works” as well as have faith.

This is what I believe that to mean:
When we have truely accepted Christ as our savior, the Holy Spirit comes to live within us. When that happens, I believe people have a desire to do good things for other people; to show the love of Christ to others. I don’t believe that we are required to do “good works”, because the Bible tells us that we are saved by faith NOT by works. We should be willing to do things for the Lord, but if we do not, I don’t believe that we’re not saved.
The fruits of the spirit are another thing that show that we have become a Christian, by those actions, people are able to see a change.
Now, some people seem to get the idea that they are always going to be more happy, kind, patient, and have more self control once they become a Christian; but that is false.

I don’t know why everyone feels we have to separate faith and works. James tells us in no uncertain terms that “faith without works is dead”, and I think he is right. Is it true that we are saved by faith? Yes. But you cannot be saved by faith absent works. We are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, not ask Jesus to be our Savior and then carry on with our own selfish lives. Unless you have works, you have no faith. Its basically a put-up or shut-up type of thing. Try marrying a woman, tell her you love her, and then never do anything to actually show her you love her. Do you? My point is you can’t separate the two. Actually works without faith may get you further than faith without works. At least you’ve accomplished something. Faith without works is useless and maybe impossible.

 

[larkin31]

No, I never said those writings can have errors in them. I believe God protected His word through the fallible men, just as He can protect His truth through His Church in spite of fallible men.

This is what you wrote:

What writings do we have that are not written by fallible men?

As we believe God inspired His word to be written, we also believe Christ built a Church, with those He appointed and gave authority too. Just as God’s word was written by fallible men, the canon was defined by fallible men, the word was translated by fallible men, the word was preserved by fallible men, fallible men included the numbering system on chapters and verses, fallible men added the punctuation marks and fallible men interpret the scriptures. Does this take away from God’s written word to be truth? No and neither does fallible men being in authority over the Church Christ inspired/built. Why did God build a Church before having the New Testament written? Why didn’t Christ write scriptures Himself? Why didn’t Christ order scriptures scribed? Because He has confidence He can protect His truth, written or in His Church, even through fallible men.

“protect his truth…in spite of fallible men”? That sentence carries literal specific meaning in this discussion. I am asking if there can be errors committed by all the fallible men in charge of the church and the scriptures since Peter. Yes, or no?

 

[jericho777]

As for the Trinity, it is more than implied by several scriptures and is not the same thing. Where does scriptures state that the Bible, or scriptures, are the only authority? Where do scriptures teach us that we should privately interpret scriptures? If it’s not in the Bible, either specifically or implied, then it has to be a man-made tradition.

I have provided scriptures that state the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, that the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church. I have provided scriptures that tell of scriptures being wrested, scriptures telling us to hold to the traditions, whether by word or epistle, and the list is too big to go on, but it seems you don’t believe me or those scriptures.

We will not agree here and it maybe no more than semantics. The scriptures say ‘understand’, one has to interpret to understand. The other point is, if the Bible were the only authority, then nothing else would be needed.

Philip was an Apostle, appointed as such by Christ. That is an authority, from the Church. That is scriptural.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

'Over 100 ties in the NT is scripture quoted as the authority or definition for what happened."

Seems, I’ve been told that scriptures are the only authority. Are you changing that statement now? Why didn’t you bother to produce some, so we could discuss them?

Interesting you said the Trinity was more than implied by scripture and you found this out yourself without the CC telling you so! That goes against your theory of someone needing the CC to explain the simple truth of Gods Word. I was told on here the trinity is because the church has declared it so and not that it was implied.

As far as being authority well being the WORD of GOD would more than imply it’s authority over any thing or anyone else. Unless you don’t believe in the first place. To me that’s pretty self evident like the Trinity.

Let’s be clear the Holy Spirit is the one who gives faith. If Einstein were to read the bible without the Holy Spirit he would never know the truth. Then on the other hand any less than educated simple person with the Holy Spirit can be the mightiest person of faith.

You keep saying private interpretation of scripture. That means someone is saying something other than what the text says. If you only use the bible to interpret itself that would not be a private interpretation but when someone uses extra biblical sources that would be a private interpretation. There is a whole study of biblical interpretation to correctly ascertain the meaning of the text. With the attitude you have how can you be sure that anything you reading in life is accurate without someone first explaining it to you?

The church can not in of itself be truth it can only reflect the truth it is given by God. It is to be built on the foundation of truth Christ. You keep saying Church the organization when the text is talking about the body of believers.

You talk about holding to the traditions delivered. The inference is past tense they were already delivered there is no more to add. You use it to justify an ever expanding religion. Things necessary for salvation in the CC are different from what was taught in the first century. It’s a different gospel!

Interpretation of scripture is multi faceted and involves many languages, customs and different perceptions stretching over thousands or years. There is more to be learned in scripture than we could ever imagine. That does not mean a person can not pick up scripture and read it and find the plan of salvation for themselves. All we do must not go against the bible. The bible is The Authority and instruction manual for salvation we need nothing else! That’s the point.

Scripture is the authority, reference or basis that was used over 100 times in the NT to interpret, instruct and define events. Scripture is the unchangeable repository of the word of God. We are to use the bible to test all things it is the measuring stick for life.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is what you wrote:

“protect his truth…in spite of fallible men”? That sentence carries literal specific meaning in this discussion. I am asking if there can be errors committed by all the fallible men in charge of the church and the scriptures since Peter. Yes, or no?

When an infallible decision is made in the matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Interesting you said the Trinity was more than implied by scripture and you found this out yourself without the CC telling you so! That goes against your theory of someone needing the CC to explain the simple truth of Gods Word. I was told on here the trinity is because the church has declared it so and not that it was implied.

Where do you think the Catholic Church got it? The scriptures of course.

As far as being authority well being the WORD of GOD would more than imply it’s authority over any thing or anyone else. Unless you don’t believe in the first place. To me that’s pretty self evident like the Trinity.

Let’s be clear the Holy Spirit is the one who gives faith. If Einstein were to read the bible without the Holy Spirit he would never know the truth. Then on the other hand any less than educated simple person with the Holy Spirit can be the mightiest person of faith.

You keep saying private interpretation of scripture. That means someone is saying something other than what the text says. If you only use the bible to interpret itself that would not be a private interpretation but when someone uses extra biblical sources that would be a private interpretation. There is a whole study of biblical interpretation to correctly ascertain the meaning of the text. With the attitude you have how can you be sure that anything you reading in life is accurate without someone first explaining it to you?

The church can not in of itself be truth it can only reflect the truth it is given by God. It is to be built on the foundation of truth Christ. You keep saying Church the organization when the text is talking about the body of believers.

You talk about holding to the traditions delivered. The inference is past tense they were already delivered there is no more to add. You use it to justify an ever expanding religion. Things necessary for salvation in the CC are different from what was taught in the first century. It’s a different gospel!

Interpretation of scripture is multi faceted and involves many languages, customs and different perceptions stretching over thousands or years. There is more to be learned in scripture than we could ever imagine. That does not mean a person can not pick up scripture and read it and find the plan of salvation for themselves. All we do must not go against the bible. The bible is The Authority and instruction manual for salvation we need nothing else! That’s the point.

Scripture is the authority, reference or basis that was used over 100 times in the NT to interpret, instruct and define events. Scripture is the unchangeable repository of the word of God. We are to use the bible to test all things it is the measuring stick for life.

Scriptures were written by men of the Church. They knew the interpretation of what they had written and they passed it on to their successors, who passed it on to their successors, and so on. Men of the Church defined the canon of the New Testament. Men of the Church preserved the scriptures, or the Protestants wouldn’t have gotten it in the 1500s during the reformation.

You’ve used a lot of words to justify private interpretation, yet no scriptures??

You say the Holy Spirit guides the reader into an interpretation, yet the eunuch didn’t get that guidance, the same as if you gave the Bible to anyone who’s never heard the Gospel wouldn’t understand it.

Now, we have thousands of denominations, with different doctrines, based on someone’s interpretation, all claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot lie. This means the Holy Spirit cannot give multiple truths to multiple people and it remain the truth. This means someone has gotten it wrong.

If it’s not written in the only authority, as you claim the Bible to be, it is a man-made tradition that comes from outside the Bible.

You place your interpretation over Catholic interpretation, which is an assumption of authority, yet you do not give where that authority comes from. Protestants tell Catholics that we have beliefs that are non-scriptural, simply because they disagree with the interpretation. They do this based on their own interpretation of scriptures, which is not Biblical, either specifically stated or implied. I am open to correction if you are willing to provide the scriptures showing of someone who interpreted scriptures on their own or a specific instruction from scriptures stating individuals should interpret them for themselves.

 

[Dokimas]

When an infallible decision is made in the matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.

Who says it is infallible now 2000 yrs from when Jesus said what He said about HIs church?

 

[larkin31]

When an infallible decision is made in the matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.

well, of course: What is infallible is infallible. True, as a definitional claim.

But I have not been asking that. I have been asking on what reasoning one can acknowledge that human actions and thoughts are subject to error (infallible) while at the same time maintain that the process of assembling and running a world-wide church organization and writing and assembling a set of scriptures (often via counsel) and establishing dogma and doctrine is infallible. Are you claiming that God does not permit any errors in the workings of these humans over thousands of years, from the time of Peter (fallible) to the present (still fallible)?

 

[Seeker100]

Okay Protestants, here’s something for you to tackle:

Several years ago I showed a Baptist co-worker of mine James 2:20 (“faith without works is dead”) and Revelation 20:12 (“And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds”). She looked at me and said, “You’re right Jean. They DO say that!” She was so disturbed by the Bible verses and that she wasn’t doing any good deeds/works that she just had to go to her Pastor about it. And she did.

In fact, she came back to work that Monday and told me that after she showed her Pastor those 2 verses, he looked directly at her and told her, “Yeah, they’re there, but they don’t mean anything.” He also added not to worry about them so she didn’t. She was actually quite relieved to know those Biblical verses did not mean anything.

As a Catholic and like most, if not all, I take the whole Bible into consideration.

It seems that if something in the Bible does not jive with Protestant beliefs it is either there and does not mean anything OR it is there and we Catholics just are not interpreting it right.

As a Catholic, it bothers me and offends me even that it always comes down to is either there and does not mean anything OR it is there and we Catholics just are not interpreting it right. In some ways, it is even insulting to me.

Why is it Catholics are always wrong and Protestants are always right? Why can’t Catholics ever be right? Or, would that be too threatening to most Protestants? I mean… if Catholics are right it somehow shatters all of what they believe in, righht?

I am sorry, but either the entire Bible means something or it means nothing. You cannot say 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 means something and is important YET disregard James 2:20 or Revelation 20:12 like it does not exist.

Many Protestants believe what James says when he writes that faith without works is dead.

The op here gives the impression that all Protestants do not believe that works are tied to faith. This is totaly false. Protestants are very diversified group and do not uniformly have the same doctrines.

It is wrong to paint them all with the same brush.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who says it is infallible now 2000 yrs from when Jesus said what He said about HIs church?

Through the promises and power of Christ the Son of the Father, through the Holy Spirit; one God. Christ died for all; all people of all times. He will not leave us as orphans and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, much less fallible men.

 

[jericho777]

Where do you think the Catholic Church got it? The scriptures of course.

Scriptures were written by men of the Church. They knew the interpretation of what they had written and they passed it on to their successors, who passed it on to their successors, and so on. Men of the Church defined the canon of the New Testament. Men of the Church preserved the scriptures, or the Protestants wouldn’t have gotten it in the 1500s during the reformation.

You’ve used a lot of words to justify private interpretation, yet no scriptures??

You say the Holy Spirit guides the reader into an interpretation, yet the eunuch didn’t get that guidance, the same as if you gave the Bible to anyone who’s never heard the Gospel wouldn’t understand it.

Now, we have thousands of denominations, with different doctrines, based on someone’s interpretation, all claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot lie. This means the Holy Spirit cannot give multiple truths to multiple people and it remain the truth. This means someone has gotten it wrong.

If it’s not written in the only authority, as you claim the Bible to be, it is a man-made tradition that comes from outside the Bible.

You place your interpretation over Catholic interpretation, which is an assumption of authority, yet you do not give where that authority comes from. Protestants tell Catholics that we have beliefs that are non-scriptural, simply because they disagree with the interpretation. They do this based on their own interpretation of scriptures, which is not Biblical, either specifically stated or implied. I am open to correction if you are willing to provide the scriptures showing of someone who interpreted scriptures on their own or a specific instruction from scriptures stating individuals should interpret them for themselves.

You mentioned semantics… My point is it’s not so unless the CC declares it so, even when it’s in scripture.

When people wrote the bible they had no knowledge they were writing scripture. It is God who preserves His word in spite of men.

The eunuch had no cultural references to know who Jesus or anyone else Jewish was.

The CC gives itself its own authority by miss interpreting scriptures.

Like I said we use scripture as the final authority and measuring stick for faith not man made religion.

 

[Dokimas]

Through the promises and power of Christ the Son of the Father, through the Holy Spirit; one God. Christ died for all; all people of all times. He will not leave us as orphans and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, much less fallible men.

I’m confused: how does this answer my question? The presence of fallible men as leaders of the church (universal not Catholic) doesn’t mean that God can’t or doesn’t use them and do some ‘mighty’ works through them in spite of their fallibility.

 

[larkin31]

??

I am asking a question of doctrinal reasoning of a believer.

I am agnostic, why are you asking me a question of what “Christ” would permit? All I can say is that I see plenty of sin/evil around everywhere, so if there is a “Christ,” sin is certainly not eradicated from human thought and action.