Salvation lost

[Jesusismyfriend]

Specifically, the six sins against the Holy Spirit are:

Presumption
Despair
Resisting the known truth
Envy of another’s spiritual good
Obstinacy in sin
Final repentance

This is from a little catechism I have had for many years.

In order to understand how one loses salvation it is necessary to understand how one obtains it.

Catholicism says three things are necessary to be saved, the theological virtues, faith, hope and charity (love). The three come directly into the soul from God and by His grace. That is why they are called theological. They can not be earned. They come in order, first faith which gives rise to hope which opens the soul to charity the crowning virtue.

Humility is the mother of all virtue. It gives birth to all virtue. Everything starts with humility which is recognizing the truth about our selves. We are sinners and do evil things. Living the life of virtue culminates with charity being infused in the soul, which is God Himself coming into us. If you love you are of God.

So the question for each Catholic becomes, do I love. How do we know? Jesus and Saint John tell us in the Bible. “If a man loves me He will keep my commands”. “The love of God consists in this, that we obey His commandments”.

Our consciences tell us if we do or we don’t.

Pride the opposite of humility is the root of all sin.

For Protestants, or the OSAS especially, only one thing is necessary for salvation. Faith alone saves. Hope and love are not necessary, so you can see why they think they have and can not lose salvation. They are saved, because they believe they are saved. They believe Jesus is the savior so nothing more is necessary.

For the Catholic mind, love (obedience) is necessary. So you can see why the two do not agree.

Note that presumption and despair are contrary vices against hope. When a person loses all hope he despairs. We use the word incorrectly. O woe is me is not despair. Despair is deep deep darkness in the soul and often leads to suicide. Judas despaired. Presumption is a sin against hope that is the opposite of despair. The beginning of salvation is the fear of God. Presumption is the opposite of holy fear. This is the danger in OSAS.

The known truth is the knowledge you need to be saved. If you reject it you reject the Savior.

When we see God give spiritual goods to others, the lives of the saints, the proper response is to be happy for them. We venerate the saints for the good things God has done for them, the holiness of their lives. If we covet the spiritual good of others we put ourselves in a position to block the good God would do for us.

Obstinacy in sin, and final impenitance are related. If we are obstinate and would rather remain in our sin than receive the grace of repentance we are lost. If we die in this condition we are lost.

If we call out to God to save us He will. If we tell Him to get lost He will not force Himself upon us.

The humble confess the truth about themselves and call to God for help. The proud say they do not need God. They are anti-Christ.

The humble can become proud (lose grace) if they credit themselves for the grace God gives them. Anything we have that is good comes from the source of all goodness. We are beggars and have nothing that we have not received including life itself. If we acknowledge God as the source of grace we are grateful. If we are not grateful we are proud.

The proud can become humble (get saved). That is what conversion is. God can not reject the humble heart. It is impossible for God to not save the soul who calls to Him who is our only hope.

Most of us go back and forth between grace and sin, vice and virtue. We repent, sin, repent and sin again seventy times seven. What matters is our condition at the time of death which is why Catholics pray for a holy death, final perseverance.

The OSAS crowd see no reason to be concerned about their death, because they presume salvation is a done deal and that they will not find out their eternal fate at judgement.

I just felt I should mention that, although it is rare to find a protestant that believe it is necessary to “help expand the kingdom of Christ by good works” there are some that strongly believe that good works ARE necessary. I don’t think salvation is all about good works, but i think that if God expected no good works from us, we’d die or be taken to heaven the second we accept Christ.
So works are necessary, more to prove that one has genuine faith. That’s what I believe, and i was born and raised Protestant. Got that from reading the Bible.

 

[Makko52]

What passages show a believer or follower of christ losing his salvation. What specific unrepentant sin can cause us to lose salvation?

If somone could lose their salvation by sin, it would certianly be very important to know “WHAT SIN CAUSES US TO LOSE SALVATION”? I spoke with a very nice Catholic priest where i live and asked him the same questions. his reply was “There are two kinds of sin, Mortal and Viniel sin. Mortal sin causes us to be kicked out of the state of Sanctifiying Grace”

If mortal sin is the only kind of sin that can make us lose salvation, what kinds of sin or mortal? Who determins what is mortal sin and viniel sin? If it is man who determines the catagories of such sin where did they get it from? It is very confusing to me…especially when i look at James 2:10 “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

If we turn to the book of Acts 10:44 “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.”
After Cornelius believe he recieved the Holy Spirit, then he was baptized in verse 48 of same chapter. Cornelius believed in the Lord recieve the Holy Spirit and then was baptized.

If you turn to Acts 8:35-37 “Then Philip opended his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said,** If thou believest with all thine heart**, thou mayest, And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
We know that the moment the enuich beleive in Jesus he recieved the Holy Spirit, then he was baptized.

So if the Holy Spirit enters a person when they believe in the Lord Jesus,(hold that thought)

Ephesians 4:30 states " And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption"
Praise the LORD!

Ephesians 1:13 states “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,”
Praise God! For his wonderful Grace and Mercy!

So My question is then if we are SEALED by the Holy Spirit how could we lose our salvation?

If we were to lose our salvation how would we get it back?
Hebrews 6:4-6 “**For it is impossible **for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

I am dumb as a rock, but it seems pretty simple to me.
1 John 2:27 “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
Love you guys.

 

[JonNC]

Catholicism says three things are necessary to be saved, the theological virtues, faith, hope and charity (love). The three come directly into the soul from God and by His grace. That is why they are called theological. They can not be earned. They come in order, first faith which gives rise to hope which opens the soul to charity the crowning virtue.

Humility is the mother of all virtue. It gives birth to all virtue. Everything starts with humility which is recognizing the truth about our selves. We are sinners and do evil things. Living the life of virtue culminates with charity being infused in the soul, which is God Himself coming into us. If you love you are of God.

So the question for each Catholic becomes, do I love. How do we know? Jesus and Saint John tell us in the Bible. “If a man loves me He will keep my commands”. “The love of God consists in this, that we obey His commandments”.

Our consciences tell us if we do or we don’t.

Pride the opposite of humility is the root of all sin.

For Protestants, or the OSAS especially, only one thing is necessary for salvation. Faith alone saves. Hope and love are not necessary, so you can see why they think they have and can not lose salvation. They are saved, because they believe they are saved. They believe Jesus is the savior so nothing more is necessary.

For the Catholic mind, love (obedience) is necessary. So you can see why the two do not agree.

I appeciate the distinction you’ve made in the bolded. This from James Akin:

As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the great difficulty new converts often experience in these areas compared to those who have attained a measure of spiritual maturity).

However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith, hope, and charity.” This does not disagree with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith alone” if the term “faith” is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.

One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define “faith”; that is, as an unconditional “placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.” The definition Protestants normally give to “faith” is the definition Catholics use for “hope.”

However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which “works by charity” then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant’s idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan “salvation by faith alone” becomes the Catholic slogan “salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).”

Read more: catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/justification-by-faith-alone-by-james-akin/

Jon

 

[grandfather]

I just felt I should mention that, although it is rare to find a protestant that believe it is necessary to “help expand the kingdom of Christ by good works” there are some that strongly believe that good works ARE necessary. I don’t think salvation is all about good works, but i think that if God expected no good works from us, we’d die or be taken to heaven the second we accept Christ.
So works are necessary, more to prove that one has genuine faith. That’s what I believe, and i was born and raised Protestant. Got that from reading the Bible.

Our works can not save us, but we can not be saved without them. Believing in faith the message of salvation is something we do, a work. You are correct. All you need to do is accept grace. Jesus tells us that those who come at the last hour, the end of their lives and do very little in His vineyard receive their pay.

If faith alone saves us then the love of God is not necessary for salvation. Faith and love are different things. Faith and hope will perish when we die. Love is eternal. We can not be saved unless we love. When God searches our souls He is looking for Himself. He is love. Jesus says He stands at the door of our hearts and knocks. If we open He and His Father will enter. God is not faith. God is love. We find Him by faith and what we find is love.

 

[snarflemike]

MY dispensationalist friend believes that once you accept Jesus even if you kill someone or die in unrepentant sin you can never lose your salvation. I tell him many passages say to persevere and endure to the end in faith and confess sin and repent of sin. It drives him nuts…

What if you become an anti-Christian atheist author?
amazon.com/Losing-Faith-From-Preacher-Atheist/dp/187773313X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1336180491&sr=8-2

Never saved to begin with? He certainly would have thought he was!

Still saved, though he now denies Christ? I think there’s a verse about that.

 

[grandfather]

What if you become an anti-Christian atheist author?
amazon.com/Losing-Faith-From-Preacher-Atheist/dp/187773313X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1336180491&sr=8-2

Never saved to begin with? He certainly would have thought he was!

Still saved, though he now denies Christ? I think there’s a verse about that.

A friend of mine was raised in a devout Protestant family. He became Catholic and it greatly troubled his mom. She was very worried about his soul (what is a mother to do), given the fact that he abandoned the great truths of the Reformation and went backwards into the Great Whore of Babylon.

Finally he said to her; Mom, remember when I was a little boy the night I said my prayers and invited Jesus into my heart and got saved. Yes she said she remembered. So he said, then what are you worried about?

Apparently you can’t lose your salvation for committing murder or rape, but becoming Catholic is the nail in the coffin, the sure road to hell.

 

[batman1973]

.

For Protestants, or the OSAS especially, only one thing is necessary for salvation. Faith alone saves. Hope and love are not necessary, so you can see why they think they have and can not lose salvation. They are saved, because they believe they are saved. They believe Jesus is the savior so nothing more is necessary.

You must not know many OSAS Protestants. The many that I do know, Hope and Love are extremely important. Because they trust in Jesus alone, they have a Hope for the future of their future with Christ. They love one another and others because Christ first loved them. And as for good works, they do good works because they are saved, and want to demonstrate the goodness that God has done for them.(James 2:14-26) but not to be saved (Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5)

 

[grandfather]

You must not know many OSAS Protestants. The many that I do know, Hope and Love are extremely important. Because they trust in Jesus alone, they have a Hope for the future of their future with Christ. They love one another and others because Christ first loved them. And as for good works, they do good works because they are saved, and want to demonstrate the goodness that God has done for them.(James 2:14-26) but not to be saved (Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5)

I agree with you. These good folks profess to believe and defend a doctrine they do not follow in practice.

First look at the doctrine for what it is. It says souls are saved by faith alone. That means faith and nothing more. All that matters is what you believe, not what you do. What you do is works.

If you adhere to Luther’s doctrine a person can confess, believe, that Jesus is the Savior and died for sins and the person is saved. Nothing more is necessary. Faith alone saves. Repentance from sin is a work, albeit one we do by grace. It is caused by faith, but is a work.

Love is something we do. It is something we express.

Luther’s famous statement about a man being a beast with a saddle and bridle and goes where the rider takes him, reveals what he meant in professing his new doctrine. He said if the rider is Christ the man’s life would be full of good works. If the rider was the devil his life would be full of evil works, but it does not matter as long as he believes, has faith, that Jesus is the savior who died for his sins.

This denies free will. It makes repentance unnecessary. Jesus told His apostles to preach the good news of repentance for forgiveness of sins.

Repentance is a work. A work is anything that we do. Faith is something we hold in our intellect. We have to act on it and many Protestants do even though they say the action is useless to salvation, because they are saved by faith alone.

The book of James tells us that faith without works is dead. This is the book of the New Testament Luther wanted to dump and he would have if he could have gotten away with it.

To defend his novel doctrine he also added the word allein that is not there. He claimed to Melancthon that it was there if he said it was there. Go read the last statement in the Bible in Revelations.

 

[Pitcharan]

I am a little confused here. What does this mean?

I don’t think any of us have the power to stop going to hell. Its up to God on the last day of judgement. If he says we are out, we are out.

Can you explain this better. Thanks

God offers Grace to all humans to enter His kingdom. It is left to them to either ‘receive gratefully’ or ‘reject foolishly’.

 

[snarflemike]

If somone could lose their salvation by sin, it would certianly be very important to know “WHAT SIN CAUSES US TO LOSE SALVATION”?

Seems like one could ask a similar question about faith. How much faith is necessary for salvation? If your saving faith is a ‘1’, is 0.1 saving faith? 0.01? 0.000000001? Is there such a thing as an amount of faith that is so small you don’t even realize you have it? Is that saving faith?

That’s where all these “how much?” questions eventually end up.

Here’s another example. If a person lives say 60 years after being saved, and is of sound mind and body, and that person does not one single good work in those 60 years, is it likely that that person is saved? A great many Protestants would say he was never saved to begin with. So what if he did 1 good work in 60 years? 2? 5? That’s one good work every 12 years. Is he saved?

 

[rinnie]

God offers Grace to all humans to enter His kingdom. It is left to them to either ‘receive gratefully’ or ‘reject foolishly’.

Oh Okay we can agree on this:thumbsup:

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;9259533] I agree with you. These good folks profess to believe and defend a doctrine they do not follow in practice.

First look at the doctrine for what it is. It says souls are saved by faith alone. That means faith and nothing more. All that matters is what you believe, not what you do. What you do is works.

Of course, OSAS is not Luther’s doctrine, nor is it sola fide. It comes from Calvin’s false perseverance of saints, which is rejected by the Lutheran confessions. Whether or not those who profess OSAS do not follow it in practice I’ll leave for them to refute.

If you adhere to Luther’s doctrine a person can confess, believe, that Jesus is the Savior and died for sins and the person is saved. ** Nothing more is necessary**. Faith alone saves. Repentance from sin is a work, albeit one we do by grace. It is caused by faith, but is a work

.
This is not exactly the case. Luther is clear that good works must follow faith. If there are no good works, then there is something wrong with that person’s faith. We are justified by grace through faith. but sanctification must follow.
“There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.” - Luther
So, to say that Luther thought an expression of faith was enough is not exactly accurate, unless you mean a faith that works through love.

Love is something we do. It is something we express.

Exactly, the fruits of new obedience.

Luther’s famous statement about a man being a beast with a saddle and bridle and goes where the rider takes him, reveals what he meant in professing his new doctrine. He said if the rider is Christ the man’s life would be full of good works. If the rider was the devil his life would be full of evil works, but it does not matter as long as he believes, has faith, that Jesus is the savior who died for his sins.

This denies free will. It makes repentance unnecessary. Jesus told His apostles to preach the good news of repentance for forgiveness of sins.

This doesn’t deny free will because we can choose not to accept grace. That is where the free will comes in.

Repentance is a work. A work is anything that we do. Faith is something we hold in our intellect. We have to act on it and many Protestants do even though they say the action is useless to salvation, because they are saved by faith alone.

Lutherans don’t say works are useless. What we say is that works do not justify. Grace alone through faith justifies.

• "It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”* - Luther

The book of James tells us that faith without works is dead. This is the book of the New Testament Luther wanted to dump and he would have if he could have gotten away with it.

What would have stopped him from getting away with it? If he, in his opinion, wanted to dump it, it didn’t have to translate it.
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle” - Luther
His main complaints were, 1, regarding its authorship, which historically is not a novelty of Luther, 2, it emphasizes the law, whereas Paul emphasizes Gospel.

To defend his novel doctrine he also added the word allein that is not there. He claimed to Melancthon that it was there if he said it was there. Go read the last statement in the Bible in Revelations.

One can quote Luther’s sarcasm as one wants, and that is what you reference here. But here’s what Luther really says about “allein” in Romans 3:28.

*“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the **Greek or Latin *text — … It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
It has to do with translation, as is evidenced by the fact that"alone" appears in no English translation, simply because it isn’t necessary in English.

When I say I confess the doctrine of sola fide, I am confessing the truth of Galatians 5:6, that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ, and that faith must be a faith that works through love.

Jon

 

[grandfather]

Of course, OSAS is not Luther’s doctrine, nor is it sola fide.

 

[grandfather]

When I say I confess the doctrine of sola fide, I am confessing the truth of Galatians 5:6, that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ, and that faith must be a faith that works through love.

It seems you are saying that Catholics are right, but at the same time sola fide is right. You are trying to reconcile the two, not prove Catholics are wrong. In order to be saved we need to love and that is also a grace. We need to believe in God and the truth He reveals, put our hope in Him by following Jesus, and love God and neighbor.

Faith, hope and love are different stuff. If all you have is faith, you do not have love. Faith may get you to love, but it is not love. You are trying to find a way to say faith alone saves, but only if you love. If that is the case it is not faith alone. It is faith with love and that makes you Catholic.

Faith alone does not save us, but we are saved by grace alone. How then are works (love) necessary? We do the works by grace. Faith is knowledge. It is in the intellect. It is knowledge of spiritual things that we obtain by belieiving what God has revealed. It is as if you told me directions to get from Arizona to Maine. I know how to get there, because I believe what you told me, not because I figured it out. I have this knowledge by faith, by believing you. The only difference between this and religious faith is religous faith is about spiritual matters and the knowledge comes from God who tells you how to get to Him not Maine.

It is plain that knowledge is useless unless it is exercised. If you do not put it to practice nothing happens other than your brain cells get tickled. You have to use it to accomplish something. Faith tells us how to love. Love is the manifestation of the knowledge.

I have to repent of my sins to be saved. I can’t do it alone. Jesus says the man who sins is a slave to sin and he does what his master commands. If God helps me with His grace I can overcome my sin and be made new. This help is grace. It sets me free. All I do is cooperate, or not.

Our purpose, the purpose for which we are made is to love and be loved. It is found in the two great commandments, love God and neighbor, but they call for the same action, love. Faith tells me what I need to do (love) to accomplish my purpose (love), and what not to do. But faith is not what I do. It is what I know. Love is my purpose. If I do not love I do not get to my proper destiny. Love is the way to heaven and God is love. Faith is the guide or map to heaven, but I have to get on the road and travel.

Here is what I see happening lately. We started out with Protestants insisting Luther is right and the Catholic Church is wrong. Catholics were saying the opposite. Protestants now have realized that faith alone does not save us, but don’t want to admit it. We need to love. Catholics are right about this.

So they now say, Luther was right and Catholics are right. What Luther really meant was…

When they do that, play with the meaning of his doctrine to make it conform to the truth they now recognize, they end up agreeing with Catholics without admitting sola fide was wrong. But that is irrelevant. What they are saying is Catholics are right and so was Luther. They are no longer saying Catholics are wrong. If your doctrine means what Catholics have believed all along why has it been a controversy for centuries? If love is necessary for salvation we agree.

So who is being a blockhead?

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;9261776]It seems you are saying that Catholics are right, but at the same time sola fide is right. You are trying to reconcile the two, not prove Catholics are wrong. In order to be saved we need to love and that is also a grace. We need to believe in God and the truth He reveals, put our hope in Him by following Jesus, and love God and neighbor.

Isn’t that what the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was trying to o? reconcile?

Faith, hope and love are different stuff. If all you have is faith, you do not have love. Faith may get you to love, but it is not love. You are trying to find a way to say faith alone saves, but only if you love. If that is the case it is not faith alone. It is faith with love and that makes you Catholic.

did you read the link I gave earlier from Akin?

Faith alone does not save us, but we are saved by grace alone. How then are works (love) necessary? We do the works by grace. Faith is knowledge. It is in the intellect. It is knowledge of spiritual things that we obtain by belieiving what God has revealed. It is as if you told me directions to get from Arizona to Maine. I know how to get there, because I believe what you told me, not because I figured it out. I have this knowledge by faith, by believing you. The only difference between this and religious faith is religous faith is about spiritual matters and the knowledge comes from God who tells you how to get to Him not Maine.

you are describing siple belief, as in devils believe.

It is plain that knowledge is useless unless it is exercised. If you do not put it to practice nothing happens other than your brain cells get tickled. You have to use it to accomplish something. Faith tells us how to love. Love is the manifestation of the knowledge.

Agreed.

I have to repent of my sins to be saved. I can’t do it alone. Jesus says the man who sins is a slave to sin and he does what his master commands. If God helps me with His grace I can overcome my sin and be made new. This help is grace. It sets me free. All I do is cooperate, or not.

no argument.

Our purpose, the purpose for which we are made is to love and be loved. It is found in the two great commandments, love God and neighbor, but they call for the same action, love. Faith tells me what I need to do (love) to accomplish my purpose (love), and what not to do. But faith is not what I do. It is what I know. Love is my purpose. If I do not love I do not get to my proper destiny. Love is the way to heaven and God is love. Faith is the guide or map to heaven, but I have to get on the road and travel.

Again, no argument.

Here is what I see happening lately. We started out with Protestants insisting Luther is right and the Catholic Church is wrong. Catholics were saying the opposite. Protestants now have realized that faith alone does not save us, but don’t want to admit it. We need to love. Catholics are right about this.

I didn’t quote anything new here. However, if we come to a convergence, why is that a problem?

So they now say, Luther was right and Catholics are right. What Luther really meant was…

again, where is the new thought? I just quoted Luther.

When they do that, play with the meaning of his doctrine to make it conform to the truth they now recognize, they end up agreeing with Catholics without admitting sola fide was wrong. But that is irrelevant. What they are saying is Catholics are right and so was Luther. They are no longer saying Catholics are wrong. If your doctrine means what Catholics have believed all along why has it been a controversy for centuries? If love is necessary for salvation we agree.

We are justified by grace through faith. Faith without works of charity is dead. If you agree with that, then the 500 year old issue is, in many ways resolved.

So who is being a blockhead?

He was speaking of those who opposed him.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;9261775]

Sola fide and sola scriptura are Luther’s two cornerstone doctrines. I was just speaking with a Lutheran minister about them. OSAS is Calvin, along with TULIP.

Correct.

This is what Catholics believe.

Good!

“A man is like a beast with a saddle and a bridle. He will go where the rider takes him. If the rider is Christ the man’s life we be full of good works. If the rider is the devil he will be full of evil works. It matters not so long as he believes Christ died for his sins he is justified”. ML

If you are a beast with a saddle and a bridle who goes whereever the rider chooses you have no free will.

Except to decide that you to not have Christ as the “rider”.

Catholics say we are saved by grace alone. The works we do are done with Christ. “Without me you can do nothing”.

Agreed.

Melancthon and other followers of Luther refused to go along with Him. He would have lost his key followers and been allein. He was told he was going too far in dumping James. Melancthon said the he could read the Greek and allein was not in the translation. Luther put it there to prove his doctrine by scripture, at least the German translation he did. Luther told Melancthon, “It is there if I say it is there”. The man changed scripture and Protestants would have no Book of James had he had his way.

did you read the quote from Luther I provided regarding James?

The authorship of several books are questionable. Many say Paul did not write Hebrews. But there are other books whose authorship are questioned.

thank you. That is/was exactly the issue about the antilegomena.

This is Luther’s defense of Luther. Those who disagree with him he ridicules and calls names. He makes himself the sole authority to translate or interpret the meaning of scripture right there in his own words. He is the pope and in Protestantism every man is his own pope with his Bible. That is the historical outcome of the reformation, denominationalism, endless division. There is nothing theological about it. It is sola history. This is the mess he unleashed by starting his own church named after him.

He he wasn’t ridiculed? There were Catholics who were using his translation for there own work. He was quite angry about that, as you or I would have been. Every translator makes decisions on the way to translate into a different language.
He never claimed to be a pope, and we don’t claim he was one. In fact, there are many things he wrote that is not accepted by us. Perhaps, had the pope in his time had listened to him about the abuses, things might have been different. Pray the Spirit can mend our division which, true enough, men on both sides share the blame

Jon

 

[snarflemike]

We are justified by grace through faith. Faith without works of charity is dead. If you agree with that, then the 500 year old issue is, in many ways resolved.

I agree. One thing I find interesting is that if one takes a Catholic living out their faith, and a Protestant living out their faith, their lives will be more similar than, perhaps, their doctrines.

 

[grandfather]

Isn’t that what the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was trying to o? reconcile?

 

[grandfather]

did you read the quote from Luther I provided regarding James?

yes

Every translator makes decisions on the way to translate into a different language.

according to his personal bias.

He never claimed to be a pope, and we don’t claim he was one.

He acted as one.

In fact, there are many things he wrote that is not accepted by us.

Think about that. You are saying Luther was right about this and wrong about that. All Protestants make up their own religion according to what they personally think is right according to their personal interpretation of scripture, Luther’s justification for divinding the Church.

Perhaps, had the pope in his time had listened to him about the abuses, things might have been different. Pray the Spirit can mend our division which, true enough, men on both sides share the blame

Jon, My unreliable opinion is that we are divided as punishment for our sins. There was nothing wrong with Catholic doctrine. There was moral corruption in the Church and Luther was scandalized by it. It goes on today. The greatest impediment that keeps souls from conversion is Christians who profess one thing and do another and I have to look at myself before I call anyone else a hypocrit.

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;9262582]

I confess that I am wary of any group that beats around the bush for years and comes up with a formula to pacify everyone to decale we are all right. When there are doctrines that contradict one another someone is wrong. Someone has to abjure.

Do you believe that the Spirit can move our understandings to a point of, not comproimise, but convergence?

No. He bugs me.

LOL

We are not just until we love.

I agree that love in an integral part of faith. Today’s Epistle reading from 1 John speaks to it.

Right! He resorted to name calling.

Goes on here, too. Luther was but a man.

Jon