Questions Protestants Won't Answer - Vol I

[rogue13]

I’ll start with 4 questions for this thread:

1. Can someone think they are saved, yet not really be saved? Yes or no?
2. Was the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) in a state of justification (saved) before he left his father’s household? Yes or no?
3. Was the Prodigal Son in a state of justification (saved) after he left his father’s household? Yes or no?
4. Was the Prodigal Son in a state of justification (saved) after he returned to his father’s household? Yes or no?

 

[tnystrom]

Let’s cut to the heart of the matter. I do not think a Protestant can answer this question honestly. Why is your interpretationn correct and someone else’s is not? Let’s say concerning women preachers, or healing, or spiritual gifts, or anything controversial?

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Rebellion is not disbelief. The prodigal son rebelled but he never quit being the son of his father.

There really two main points of the story, one is that our father continues to wait for us to come to him when we rebel, we do not need to stay away from fear.

The other is the attitude of the brother that stayed, jealous of his brother and the fact that his father welcomed him. This is the situation in many churches where people aren’t really welcome because those already there want it to be just like it is. They are jealous that a sinner that isn’t like them, the wonderful obedient son can be saved.

They neglect to see how good they have it compared to the rebellious ones.

It is the same point of the workers getting paid a days wages, whether they work the whole day or if they were the last ones chosen and only worked a short time. The ones who worked all day failed to see how they were comforted and had the security of knowing they would be paid and they could take care of their needs while the later workers had all day to worry that they would have nothing and could not feed their families.

Sermonette over, go on with your smear campaign.

 

[Lizziebel]

I’ll start with 4 questions for this thread:

1. Can someone think they are saved, yet not really be saved? Yes or no?
2. Was the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) in a state of justification (saved) before he left his father’s household? Yes or no?
3. Was the Prodigal Son in a state of justification (saved) after he left his father’s household? Yes or no?
4. Was the Prodigal Son in a state of justification (saved) after he returned to his father’s household? Yes or no?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think a Protestant wouldn’t answer these questions?

1. Yes, definitely.
2. Well, I forget exactly how he lived his life before leaving home, but perhaps no.
3. Definitely no, because of how he lived at that time.
4. Yes, he wisely repented of his sins. He returned home and was forgiven.

 

[NotWorthy]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think a Protestant wouldn’t answer these questions?

1. Yes, definitely.
2. Well, I forget exactly how he lived his life before leaving home, but perhaps no.
3. Definitely no, because of how he lived at that time.
4. Yes, he wisely repented of his sins. He returned home and was forgiven.

I think our good Rogue is lumping all Protestants into the OSAS category. The son walking away from the inheritance and then repenting would be akin to leaving the Jewish Faith and then returning. To the Christian, this would be someone walking away from Christian beliefs and then returning. This is a difficult teaching for someone who believes in OSAS as it is taught.

Trying to pigeon hole Protestants into a single belief is kind of like herding cats, however. Not all Protestant, as I understand it, believe in OSAS.

 

[Lizziebel]

Yes, I saw what he was getting at belatedly when it was spelled out pretty much in his other thread that starts out with these same exact questions.

It does seem like Rogue is mistakenly making that assumption. I’d never heard of the OSAS belief until coming onto these forums, but I can imagine what a clash of beliefs this would be. I wonder how someone who believes it would explain this parable, or the story of various men praying in the temple with one of them coming away justfied?

Hopefully whatever discussion happens in here will be charitable.

:harp:

 

[BrianH]

I’ll start with 4 questions for this thread:

1. Can someone think they are saved, yet not really be saved? Yes or no?
2. Was the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) in a state of justification (saved) before he left his father’s household? Yes or no?
3. Was the Prodigal Son in a state of justification (saved) after he left his father’s household? Yes or no?
4. Was the Prodigal Son in a state of justification (saved) after he returned to his father’s household? Yes or no?

It is a parable that has many components. I would never think any conclusive Soteriology concepts can be drawn from the parable alone.

 

[Cajetan]

1. Can someone think they are saved, yet not really be saved? Yes or no?

Calvinists, at least, would reply with an unequivocal “yes.” People often flirt with Christianity, and think of themselves as of the Elect, but later on fall away from the faith. This is evidence of them never having been of the predestined Elect, despite their belief at the time.

 

[rogue13]

Rebellion is not disbelief. The prodigal son rebelled but he never quit being the son of his father.

There really two main points of the story, one is that our father continues to wait for us to come to him when we rebel, we do not need to stay away from fear.

Sermonette over, go on with your smear campaign.

First of all, you didn’t answer the questions. Second of all, you really wish to assert that rebellion against the Father is not a condition that causes one to lose his salvation, as you seem to be doing? So, Lucifer rebelled against the Father, but still believes, so does that mean Lucifer is saved?

And, please explain to me, if the son is still in a state of being saved even after his rebellion, why the Bible says he was “lost” and that he was “dead”? Do the words “lost” and “dead” generally apply to the saved? And why does it describe him as being alive “again”? To be alive again, doesn’t one first have to be alive (saved), then dead (unsaved), and then alive once more (saved again)?

Finally, why do you consider the truth to be a “smear campaign”…after all, you didn’t answer the questions, did you?

Lizziebel: “Just out of curiosity, why do you think a Protestant wouldn’t answer these questions?”

Well, Protestants who believe in OSAS will not answer the questions because they cannot answer the questions and remain consistent with their theology and with the Bible. So, they have to ignore the questions and label them as “smear campaigns” or as “irrelevant” or some such thing, instead of actually answering them and then having to explain their answers.

Notworthy: “I think our good Rogue is lumping all Protestants into the OSAS category.”

Actually, I’m not. First of all, I tried to attract the attention of OSAS Protestants by labeling the first thread exactly that, “Once Saved, Always Saved.” Since I received no Protestant responses in that thread, I decided to broaden the title to see if I could get a Protestant to peek and possibly answer the questions. So, I am not lumping all Protestants into the OSAS category as much as I am simply trying to get OSAS Protestants to look at and then, hopefully, answer the questions. I realize that not all Protestants believe in OSAS.

Second of all, as I mentioned in the title of this thread, this is merely Volume I of these questions that Protestants won’t answer. There will be more questions to come in future threads that will apply more generally to most, if not all, Protestants.

 

[kimmielittle]

I beg patience fore; I am youth. In age, my spiritual walk with my God, my fellow human sinners, my Church.

" Vol 1" ] Would indicate there is more of this to come?

My point is: “What’s Your Point?”

Your wording: Seems, to me, hostile, and meant to provoke. I can not understand your rational. The only gain I can see, is one of gaining attention.

Ya know, prayer WILL get you all the attention, EVER needed.

 

[rogue13]

It is a parable that has many components. I would never think any conclusive Soteriology concepts can be drawn from the parable alone.

Really? Why not? It is indeed a parable that has many components - many parables do. But, do the terms “lost” and “found” and “dead” and “alive again” not have anything to do with “Soteriology concepts”? Does one rebelling against the Father and repenting of his sins and coming back to the Father not have anything to do with “Soteriology concepts”? I would be very interested in the arguments you would use to back up your opinion.

Plus, it is not this “parable alone” that allows one to draw the conclusion that Scripture does not support OSAS, but this parable is a very powerful argument in that direction. The fact that the language of this parable does not fit well into a OSAS theology causes a bit of scriptural indigestion for OSAS adherents.

 

[Ruthie]

I’ve run into several versions of OSAS.

The one I dislike is the one that says (and this was a question I asked) if Billy Graham was to go out suddenly and commit a serious and violent robbery, that would mean that he was never saved in the first place.

The silliest one is the one that says Jesus paid for all your sins, including those in your future, so you can go ahead and sin all you want. Of course, I have only heard this from individuals, who have obviously taken the phrase “once saved, always saved” absolutely literally. I’ve never heard it from a pastor or read it in a doctrine.

I’ve seen others that largely agree with Catholic teaching on sanctifying grace. Basically, once we have received it, God is always there for us. But we can turn away from Him and lose it; we can turn back to Him in repentance, and get it back, because He is waiting for us to do just that. (I hope I got that right. I have a mild case of brain-fog today.)

So, it seems to depend on one’s definition of “saved.” They seem to range all the way from from a grace that is yours to refuse or accept as many times as you sin and sincerely repent, to a one-time event that covers you even if you die unrepentant after proclaiming atheism, committing perjury, murdering your parents, robbing a bank, and running off with another man’s wife and car. (I think that covers all the Commandments.)

When we Catholics take the phrase “OSAS” literally, we are misunderstanding it as much as those non-Cs who see someone kneeling in front of a statue of Mary and assume we worship her.

God, help us all be more careful of assumptions,

Ruthie

 

[rogue13]

" Vol 1" ] Would indicate there is more of this to come?

My point is: “What’s Your Point?”

Your wording: Seems, to me, hostile, and meant to provoke. /QUOTE]

Yes, I plan on more “volumes”. The point is indeed to provoke…to provoke an argument. An argument in the classical sense…an exchange of ideas…an exchange of reasons for why one person believes what they do and why another person doesn’t.

Why do you consider my wording to be “hostile”? Would you please quote, pray tell, the words you consider hostile? I don’t call anyone any names. I don’t condemn anyone to Hell. It seems to me, you’ve set yourself up as my judge and already condemned me. Why are you being so mean and so hostile to me? I’m very sensitive.

Why are so many people afraid of direct questions? Why is asking someone a direct question, or stating an obvious truth, have to be considered hostile? Why are so many people afraid of an argument?

With all due respect, Kimmielittle, methinks thou art being a bit too sensitive.

 

[BrianH]

Really? Why not? It is indeed a parable that has many components - many parables do. But, do the terms “lost” and “found” and “dead” and “alive again” not have anything to do with “Soteriology concepts”? Does one rebelling against the Father and repenting of his sins and coming back to the Father not have anything to do with “Soteriology concepts”? I would be very interested in the arguments you would use to back up your opinion.

Plus, it is not this “parable alone” that allows one to draw the conclusion that Scripture does not support OSAS, but this parable is a very powerful argument in that direction. The fact that the language of this parable does not fit well into a OSAS theology causes a bit of scriptural indigestion for OSAS adherents.

They are terms that are often associated with that.
I have thought about it terms of it being an overall treatsie on humanity and how patient God is with us and forgiving. The following parables emphasizing God’s love towards sinners who repent.
I do not think it causes, and I have been on the web a long time, any spiritual indigestion at all. That is probably a little bit of bluster in my view.
Like I said, there are a thousand concepts involved. Sure one can find some form of individual salvation/anti-OSAS message in it if looking for it.

 

[kimmielittle]

kimmielittle;4620563:

" Vol 1" ] Would indicate there is more of this to come?

My point is: “What’s Your Point?”

Your wording: Seems, to me, hostile, and meant to provoke. /QUOTE]

Yes, I plan on more “volumes”. The point is indeed to provoke…to provoke an argument. An argument in the classical sense…an exchange of ideas…an exchange of reasons for why one person believes what they do and why another person doesn’t.

Why do you consider my wording to be “hostile”? Would you please quote, pray tell, the words you consider hostile? “Questions Protestants Won’t Answer” would be one example… ] I don’t call anyone any names. I don’t condemn anyone to Hell. It seems to me, you’ve set yourself up as my judge and already condemned me. Why are you being so mean and so hostile to me? I’m very sensitive. I wasn’t trying to be mean I ask your forgiveness, if I gave you that impression.

Why are so many people afraid of direct questions? Why is asking someone a direct question, or stating an obvious truth, have to be considered hostile? Why are so many people afraid of an argument?

With all due respect, Kimmielittle, methinks thou art being a bit too sensitive.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’ll start with 4 questions for this thread:

1. Can someone think they are saved, yet not really be saved? Yes or no?

Calvin deals with this in some detail​

 

[rogue13]

Rogue13: “Why do you consider my wording to be “hostile”? Would you please quote, pray tell, the words you consider hostile?”

Kimmielittle: “‘Questions Protestants Won’t Answer’ would be one example…”

Rogue13: With all due respect, but are you kidding, or are you serious? You consider that phrase to be “hostile”? I guess you would you consider Jesus as being totally out of control when he called the scribes and Pharisees, “liars” and “whitewashed tombs” and “blind guides” and so on, eh? And, you must consider Him to have been downright murderous when He went into the Temple with a whip and turned tables over and such, eh?

Rogue13: “Why are you being so mean and so hostile to me? I’m very sensitive.”

Kimmielittle: “I wasn’t trying to be mean I ask your forgiveness, if I gave you that impression.”

Rogue13: Aaarrrgghhh! Stop being so namby-pamby! I wish so many people would stop subscribing to the Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?” philosophy! So many people just tiptoe around and apologize about everything at the drop of a hat…so afraid to “offend” someone.

We need to keep in mind that Jesus offended people - and I don’t recall Him ever apologizing for it. He was also “hostile” to people from time-to-time.

I would think that as Christians, we would assume the best about people posting in this forum, and thereby we would - since it is so hard to ascertain “tone” from the words written in an electronic post - assume that no one intends to offend anyone and that people have no hostile intentions and so forth. Also, as Christians, I would think that even if someone intended to offend us, we would not take offense.

And if we come across someone who writes in a blunt, direct, and straightforward manner, I would think that we, as Christians, would not assume something negative about that person, rather we would merely assume that this is a blunt, direct, and straightforward person - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[kimmielittle]

'I guess you would you consider Jesus"…] The problem with this whole paragraph is… " I guess you would"

"Questions Protestants Won’t Answer’ ] If you notice, I didn’t answer them…and don’t intend to. Does that statement not call anyone who doesn’t answer…a Protestant?

I asked forgiveness for giving you the impression that what I wrote was done to be mean. NOT for my thoughts on your writing…chosen style…phraseology .

Sorry, I dono “Rodney King”. I don’t think I’ve read him.

Rogue13: Aaarrrgghhh! Stop being so namby-pamby!

Sir, it might be true that, I am perceived ill fit for battle, BUT I might suggest, you chose your opponents better. A mountain of a man fell to a kid the Holy Bible tells us. Saint Joan of Arc’s team - ripped em up. Little One’s do have their place in history…huh?

…"Also, as Christians, I would think that even if someone intended to offend us, we would not take offense. ] Is this lawyer talk? Did you not take the offensive toward my posts?

…“since it is so hard to ascertain “tone” from the words written in an electronic post” ] Very true. Since you pointed it out, might I suggest that my post was to determine by your choice/usage of words, phrasing… your "tone’.

 

[rogue13]

Dear Kimmielittle,

I do not wish to turn this into a personal squabble, however, I feel it necessary to respond because you have totally missed not only the tone, but the meaning of my posts…and rather badly I must say. So, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, and to hopefully lower your defensive walls a bit, I would like to make my meanings a bit more clear.

'I guess you would you consider Jesus"…] The problem with this whole paragraph is… " I guess you would".

Well, would you? Please read Matthew 23 and tell me, in your opinion, if Jesus was being “hostile” or not? I ask because He uses much stronger language than I did in my posts, yet you call me hostile.

"Questions Protestants Won’t Answer’ ] If you notice, I didn’t answer them…and don’t intend to. Does that statement not call anyone who doesn’t answer…a Protestant?

Uhhhmm…no, it doesn’t. You have badly misinterpreted the title of this thread. If you’re Catholic, I am not interested in your answers…at all! I don’t want you to answer. I am only interested in the answers to those questions from people who are Protestants and, for this particular “volume,” Protestants who believe in the dogma of Once Saved Always Saved.

I am not calling anyone who does not answer these questions a “Protestant.” That would be a ridiculous thing to do.

The thread is titled as it is, not out of hostility, but because I have asked these questions, and the questions that I will be asking in future “volumes,” of dozens upon dozens upon dozens of Protestants - laity and ministers - and have yet to get answers. So, the title merely reflects my experiences. These are questions Protestants will not answer.

Your interpretation of the title of this thread is about a third standard deviation away from the norm. In other words, it’s way off.

I asked forgiveness for giving you the impression that what I wrote was done to be mean. NOT for my thoughts on your writing…chosen style…phraseology.

You didn’t give me the impression that what you wrote was done to be mean. I was being facetious. I knew you wouldn’t get it and so I did this to show you that you had best be careful when trying to interpret the “tone” of an electronic post…mine or anyone else’s. It can be a bit tricky. This was simply another example of you misinterpreting my tone.

I wasn’t offended. My skin is a lit bit thicker than that…as is my head.

Sorry, I dono “Rodney King”. I don’t think I’ve read him.

Nevermind.

[Rogue13: Aaarrrgghhh! Stop being so namby-pamby!]

Sir, it might be true that, I am perceived ill fit for battle, BUT I might suggest, you chose your opponents better. A mountain of a man fell to a kid the Holy Bible tells us. Saint Joan of Arc’s team -ripped em up. Little One’s do have their place in history…huh?

First of all, dear Miss Kimmielittle, you are not my opponent and I am not engaged in “battle” with you. Second of all, I claim Joan of Arc as my champion. She is one of my favorite saints (even if she is French)…

…"Also, as Christians, I would think that even if someone intended to offend us, we would not take offense. ] Is this lawyer talk? Did you not take the offensive toward my posts?

Again, you have seriously misinterpreted the meaning of the words. The phrase, “not take offense,” means not to be offended. It does not mean to go on offense as opposed to being on defense. If I had said, “…we would not take the offensive,” then you would have interpreted it correctly. But, that’s not what I said.

In other words, as Christians, we should not be offended even if someone intends to offends us, much less if they do so accidentally.

…“since it is so hard to ascertain “tone” from the words written in an electronic post” ] Very true. Since you pointed it out, might I suggest that my post was to determine by your choice/usage of words, phrasing… your "tone’.

Well, if your post was to determine my tone, then why did you use the word “hostile” and why did you say that the only reason you could see for it was for “gaining attention.” Sorry, sounds to me like you had already passed judgment as opposed to seeking more information.

 

[kimmielittle]

Dear Kimmielittle,

Well, would you? Please read Matthew 23 and tell me, in your opinion, if Jesus was being “hostile” or not? I ask because He uses much stronger language than I did in my posts, yet you call me hostile.

Dear Master ( as in Teacher ) Rogue,
This is a GREAT post:thumbsup:

Oh Yes, Jesus was quite angered. I not only look at His righteous anger and display, what He was trying to teach, BUT I also, put myself in place of those poor souls ( althou guilty ) who had to witness it. I might charge armies defending my Church, cause I HAZ backup - BUT what backup is there against His Righteousness.? I’m sure… I would at very least, pp my panties.

I defend myself who would wish to “turn me”, by showing me scripture and comparing themselves or acts to scripture, with this first line of defensive thinking, “kimmie be on the defensive, seek out more wisdom, before buying into it” ( it’s quite funny, to me, how many Atheists use scripture to TRY to prove their case ).

Kids, who ARE Catholics, are bombarded every day with “social pressures”, anti-Catholics etc. Even on a Catholic Forum Board, we get it. Let alone innocent but erroneous interpretations of scripture ( I’m not saying you have done so, please don’t think that. I will challenge, those I think do so ). I HAZ backups and will call defenders of my Faith if need be ( I get over my head), to either show me ( even if I’m in the wrong ), or them.

I’m happy you spelled out OSAS. IMHO, this is a dangerous concept, for any to hold. Saved by His Blood, Yes…BUT we stray. Saved doesn’t equate to ABOVE sin, OR committing more sins, least we be Jesus Himself. We MUST return.

I’m happy you aren’t calling me a Protestant. Just as I’m sure there are nice boys out there, I don’t wanna be one

I am a Catholic, a Christian, I wear it proudly.

I try to be meek BUT not weak toward those who offend. I fail OFTEN, specially when I feel…or KNOW that offense is an abomination, against God, Church, Humankind. IE: abortion. I resent that I’m made to become a participant ( via taxes, laws ). As a statesman named Davy Crockett once pointed out to Congress, “It’s not your money to give” ( His whole speech is on the internet…just search the quote “It’s not yours to give” ). I know the sin will still exist without funding and only The Holy Spirit, can - AND WILL - change this, but I resent having my taxes my laws used to promote it.

Hate the sins - love us sinners -saint kimmie

Ya know, I’m really happy I misinterpreted. I’m happy, as well, that I spoke to it and you answered without sluffin’ me, my posts, aside. This way, we, that have misinterpreted, now can clearly see. Thank you.

Many of us kids have questions/concerns that go unanswered, within our Church, our society. This forum ( not this thread ) is VERY guilty ( yes a judgment, on my part but one based on my experience ) of sluffin’ off our questions/concerns. We are expected to wade through years of posts and missive amounts of extra information in urls (sometimes written in three foreign languages and a stuffy terminology that’s simply put, insufferable to try to resolve our concerns. Or our questions/concerns are sluffed off, because seen as, “under a response” ( this of course is only my interpretation, as I get no response ). If intended to teach…what question from a kid is unimportant? Many times, it takes me hours to compose a message/post/Que…just to have some Grwnup sluff it and me off. I wouldn’t go through the torture of tryin to express my Q if it wasn’t important to me.

If you Grownups don’t want us to learn from the wrong peeps - then Ya need to take your time with us. How better to bring forth His fruits?

YOU my friend, didn’t sluff me off. You became a teacher.