Q. What Is the Greatest of All Protestant “Heresies”? A. Assurance

[ReformedProtestant]

How do we know that we “believe” in our hearts and not just in our heads? We could easily deceive ourselves. The promises of Romans 10:9-10 are for those who believe in their heart but Jeremiah 17:9 tells us that human hearts are deceitful and wicked, who can know them? It’s difficult enough to know the state of our own heart. It is even more difficult to know the state of someone else’s heart. Belief should be born out in actions to show that it is full, complete and genuine. Considering the full revelation of God in Scripture, we know that faith works by love (Galatians 5:6). A loveless faith would be a broken and non-working faith and a fruitless faith. John 15 speaks about fruitfless branches cut off and cast into the fire. Q. How do we know the difference between the true and false (genuine and insincere)? A. By fruit.

The command of Jesus was more than “Believe in Me”. It included “Follow Me” and this is something that the genuine and faith-full believer should do through all circumstances for all their days and be faithful unto death, if needed.

I completely agree with what you wrote, quoted above… (Matthew 7:15-20) We are to examine ourselves (2 Corinthians 13:5) As a famous Protestant Baptist preacher stated, “Conversion is not like a flu-shot. “Oh, I did that. I repented. I believed.” The question is… Are you continuing to repent of sin? Are you continuing to believe? Because He who began a good work in you will finish it. He will finish it.”

With regards to your last paragraph about purgatory, we disagree on that issue… This has to do with our views of justification and sanctification.

Thanks again for the informative discussion.

God bless

 

[MT1926]

Much of this disagreement hinges on our views of the atonement. Although I understand that Roman Catholicism rejects Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), as it was fully developed by the Protestant Reformers, but PSA stems from Anselm and Augustine. And one can hold to PSA without rejecting the earlier views.

From one of the main Confessions of the English Reformation, The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 8 Christ the Mediator:

II. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

III. The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father, who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.

You’ll notice Nicene and Chalcedonian doctrines throughout those paragraphs.

God bless…

I’m sorry I must be missing something here? Where does this answer the question "How could God punish Jesus on the cross"

It actually seems to be teaching the exact opposite when is says…The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.

That’s the Catholic position, Jesus offered himself as the perfect once and for all sacrifice. God didn’t punish Him. God didn’t take His wrath out on Him. Just like God never punished or took His wrath out on the Old Testament sacrifices.

Thanks, but it seems like the Westminster confessional is trying to hold two contradictory positions on this?

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Luther was condemned as a heretic in 1521.

But he isn’t defined as one now. Correct?

Did Luther change?

BTW, you didn’t open those links I gave to see the particulars

 

[JonNC]

My understanding is that, once outside the control of the Church Militant (dead), that accusation no longer applies. Right?

 

[JonNC]

I’ve given this link previously. You didn’t open it,

Re: Luther and apocrypha, he says apocrypha is NOT equal to scripture. Enough said.

Here is his bible http://lutherbibel.net/biblia2/index.htm written ~1534

Luther demoted scriptural books to non scripture status.

Steve,
I have a copy of Die Bibel. I know what is in it.

Luther had no power to “demote” scriptural books. And frankly, he knew it. It is the reason why he included those books he viewed as not inspired.
Does your DRB say these books are now “demoted” because Luther said so? No! So, he had no power to demote them. He did have the right to his opinion regarding them, and that’s not even a defense of his opinion, only his right to have it. It is the same right that Jerome had, and Cajetan had, and others.
He strongly recommended reading them, and teaching from them, and they have a history of liturgical use in Lutheran settings, as well as in hymnody. That, in and of itself, makes them canon in a matter of speaking. They can be used to support and defend doctrine. The only limit on disputed books in a Lutheran setting is the use of them to define doctrine.

 

[steve-b]

My understanding is that, once outside the control of the Church Militant (dead), that accusation no longer applies. Right?

if Luther is in hell, he’s there because he didn’t change his trajectory here on this side of eternity. Therefore one’s last actions on this side of eternity, are made permanent in eternity. One dying in mortal sin will spend eternity in hell. That’s scripture, and that’s Church teaching

What did Paul say to bishop Titus on this?

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

if he dies that way he’s screwed

 

[JonNC]

Titus 3:10

“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

And yet there are many here who spend many posts condemning him. And there are now many Catholic theologians re-evaluating him. Ironic, isn’t it?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Titus 3:10

“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

And yet there are many here who spend many posts condemning him. And there are now many Catholic theologians re-evaluating him. Ironic, isn’t it?

and Maybe they need re-evaluation.

Let’s face it, Luther was a badly flawed individual. That’s why he was excommunicated and condemned a heretic. And the process was all documented. Luther could have changed. He didn’t have to stay that way. He could have reconciled and come back into the Church. Unless you know differently, he apparently didn’t change his positions on this side of eternity.

 

[JonNC]

and Maybe they need re-evaluation.

Steve, I respect you highly based on what you write, but I don’t think you or I are qualified to do that.

Let’s face it, Luther was a badly flawed individual.

And do was the pope who excommunicated him.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Old Testament is not essential to salvation.

Rubbish.

"…the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. " (Dei Verbum, 11)

“all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

 

[MT1926]

The Old Testament is not essential to salvation.

While Catholics may have a complete set, so few have read let alone understood the significance of OT books.

WHAT?

How on earth can we fully understand the New without the Old?

You want to start learning the significance of the OT you need to start read some Scott Hahn.

All a Catholic needs to do is listen to the three readings every Sunday, The Church lines the OT and NT right for them.

 

[Theo520]

Rubbish.

"…the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. " (Dei Verbum, 11)

“all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

I already acknowledged the OT is important, and never disputed the divine nature of the OT. BUT it’s not the new covenant for Christians. Nothing in your comments shows me in error. Don’t misread my claim it’s not essential with it’s not beneficial.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

and Maybe they need re-evaluation.

Steve, I respect you highly based on what you write, but I don’t think you or I are qualified to do that.

Jon
We both have been doing this for a lot of years. We’ve both had many opportunities to address objections from many directions. We both have developed instincts and lots of reasons for choosing the positions we take.

Let’s face it, Luther was a badly flawed individual.

JonNC:

And do was the pope who excommunicated him.

Pope Leo didn’t even come close to what Luther did. So we need to maintain a sense of proportion here… fair?

In almost 2000 years, we’ve had 266 popes in succession to Peter. A handful of those popes have not been good. NONE, as in ZERO, went off and started his own Church. NONE taught heresy to the Church.

 

[JonNC]

In almost 2000 years, we’ve had 266 popes in succession to Peter. A handful of those popes have not been good. NONE, as in ZERO, went off and started his own Church. NONE taught heresy to the Church.

Some might argue that every Bishop of Rome has since 1054. Some might, I won’t. What I will say is Leo and the corruption in the Church created the atmosphere for the Reformation. Luther never happens except for the Church making possible.
Schism and division happens at least as much before of what is happening within the Church as what happens outside it.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’ve given this link previously. You didn’t open it,

Re: Luther and apocrypha, he says apocrypha is NOT equal to scripture. Enough said.

Here is his bible http://lutherbibel.net/biblia2/index.htm written ~1534

Luther demoted scriptural books to non scripture status.

Steve,
I have a copy of Die Bibel. I know what is in it.

Luther had no power to “demote” scriptural books. And frankly, he knew it. It is the reason why he included those books he viewed as not inspired.

You’ve made a distinction there with no difference.
Yes, he has no power to do what he did, but he did it anyway. He took inspired books and put them into the category of non inspired books. Call it what you want, he demoted scripture to non scripture. Ergo by demoting scripture to non scripture he removed those inspired books from scripture. And that was a deliberate act by him.

JonNC:

Does your DRB say these books are now “demoted” because Luther said so? No!

The bible Luther received, had 73 books to the canon, and had been there for 1000 + years.

JonNC:

So, he had no power to demote them. He did have the right to his opinion regarding them, and that’s not even a defense of his opinion, only his right to have it.

He had no right to do what he did.

JonNC:

It is the same right that Jerome had, and Cajetan had, and others.

Jerome has those same 73 books in his Vulgate. Cajetan didn’t remove any books or demote any books to apocrypha status.

JonNC:

He strongly recommended reading them, and teaching from them, and they have a history of liturgical use in Lutheran settings, as well as in hymnody. That, in and of itself, makes them canon in a matter of speaking. They can be used to support and defend doctrine. The only limit on disputed books in a Lutheran setting is the use of them to define doctrine.

He can’t be defended on this. Everyone followed him and ultimately all the protestant sects just eliminated those books altogether from their bibles. Because after all, why have non scriptural books in with scripture?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

In almost 2000 years, we’ve had 266 popes in succession to Peter. A handful of those popes have not been good. NONE, as in ZERO, went off and started his own Church. NONE taught heresy to the Church.

Some might argue that every Bishop of Rome has since 1054. Some might, I won’t. What I will say is Leo and the corruption in the Church created the atmosphere for the Reformation. Luther never happens except for the Church making possible.
Schism and division happens at least as much before of what is happening within the Church as what happens outside it.

You’re assuming people can just start their own Church if things to them aren’t right.

Every heretic thinks they have reasons for what they do. When I quoted Paul to bishop Titus, Paul said give a heretic 2 tries to change course, if no change, then move on the guy is already self condemned… Paul would have taken that course with Luther as well.

 

[Nelka]

You’re assuming people can just start their own Church if things to them aren’t right.

A man I work with started his own church because he wanted his own church, he also called the Catholic church boring.

 

[JonNC]

You’ve made a distinction there with no difference.

Yes, he has no power to do what he did, but he did it anyway.

So, you DRB reflects Luther’s power to demote books?

Jerome has those same 73 books in his Vulgate. Cajetan didn’t remove any books or demote any books to apocrypha status.

Luther had 74 in his. His opinion about them are his. But his translation actually had more books

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You’re assuming people can just start their own Church if things to them aren’t right.

A man I work with started his own church because he wanted his own church, he also called the Catholic church boring.

I should have added to my comment, with no consequences to their soul

 

[JonNC]

You’re assuming people can just start their own Church if things to them aren’t right.

Every heretic thinks they have reasons for what they do. When I quoted Paul to bishop Titus, Paul said give a heretic 2 tries to change course, if no change, then move on the guy is already self condemned… Paul would have taken that course with Luther as well.

I never made that assumption. I just said that lots of Catholics seem unable to do what Paul said.

All I’m stating is that, regarding the canon of scripture, there is an obvious and overt double standard