Yes, that is what many believe, including some Protestsnts.
Protestantism has never wrestled with sharing, defining papal authority with writ or councils. The western Catholic church has.
Well you said,
Not sure i follow. I basically said a few Catholics said some do more with less, speaking of P’s. I applied it to some OT saints relative to some NT saints. Not at odds with parable of talents.
Then why does Exodus 20:17 “lump” wives in-between the “possessions” of “house” and “slaves & animals” in the same verse if “do not covet your neighbor’s wife” is supposed be a separate commandment from “do not covet your neighbor’s possessions”? Since this thread is not about this topic, please refer to the thread I already responded to you, so we can stay on topic on this one. It is in post #109 & #110:
It is the Protestants who needed to shed Catholic Church authority. Therefore, they were and are the ones continuing to wrestle with it.
Sorry about that. Let me gather my thoughts.
Let’s reboot that question based upon my correction, above.
What does that have to do with you saying that God withholds His grace? You said that a man is totally depraved and can’t do any good before justification. Thus he only has free will to sin. Did you not?
Totally different point. You also said that OT Saints were born again during their lives. Something which could not have been possible since the Spirit was not given until Jesus Christ was glorified.
I don’t remember the parable of the talents being mentioned.
I didn’t call you over here to discuss that topic. I called you over here to chime in on that which @Mcq is saying. He says that Abraham and the OT saints were born again in their lives. Just wanted your opinion on that. I’ve never heard another Protestant say that.
We already disagree. Catholics NEVER use sola Scriptura.
John 3:16 was written based upon the Sacred Tradition passed down by Jesus Christ. Nothing in the New Testament is by Scripture alone.
God breathed Scripture is based upon God breathed Tradition.
And because this is what God does for Catholic believers when they approach the fountain of grace.
And again, it is you who needs EXPLICIT evidence from Scripture. All Catholic Doctrines are in Scripture explicit or IMPLIED. We don’t have to have explicit statements. You do.
Let me see. I’ve answered this several ways and you don’t seem to get it. Let me try a different tact.
And Baptism replaced circumcision.
What do you mean by that? That you are no longer sinning? That faith counts as obedience to the Law? Or something else? I don’t follow.
So have you faithfully and perfectly kept the commands in the Law?
Do you mean Mcq? I saw RaisedCatholics response but didn’t quite understand it. I asked for but haven’t seen clarification.
Agreed.
But, do you mean that being justified in the same way means that they were born again in their lives (i.e. the OT Saints)?
Lol! Caught that did ya? I did that on purpose since Protestants are always bringing that charge against us.
Very good. But now you need to reconcile that with the fact that he also said, “doers of the Law are justified.” (Rom 2:13). So, he doesn’t mean that one may simply set the Law aside and expect to be justified by God.
To turn to God in faith and turn away from sin.
The law requires faith to keep it. Why would a man who does not have faith in God, attempt to keep the Law?
You seem to think that’s a bad thing.
I’ve done my best. Have you? Or have you abdicated your responsibilities to God?
Well, the truth is there are Antinomians out there who do adhere to “Easy Believism” or “Cheap Grace” or whatever you want to call it and who seem more interested in defending their sinful ways than denying themselves and obeying the scriptural command to “Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 20:7). If it was just slack individuals, that would be one thing, but there are people in pulpits feeding into this mindset in some churches.
Again, you are not quite getting what “sola scriptura” means. Yes, there was no “New Testament” prior to the time of Christ. But the example I gave with Jesus being the ONLY begotten Son of God is an example that both Catholics & Protestants believe, which is “based” on sola scriptura BECAUSE it is not dependent on “tradition” but can be found “solely” in Scripture. And what is written in the NT is what was taught by Jesus & His disciples. But later “traditions” that were not written down, that both Catholics & Protestants mutually disagree with, is BECAUSE they aren’t found in Scripture, are examples of sola scriptura.
But you omitted the sentence before:
By “fountain of grace,” are you referring to the “fountain” of water baptism? If so, “where” is Paul even alluding to that in Romans 4? If not, how does that connect to what you said about Paul using Genesis 22 & Abraham being made righteous by his faith? BTW, although you believe you addressed my question, you didn’t, since my question was: “If Paul is equating Abraham being made righteous because of his faith to NT water baptism,” then “where” is Paul equating this? See below:
If this is the case, then when Paul stated he was made RIGHTEOUS BEFORE his circumcision, then using your example of “baptism replacing circumcision,” then Christians are made RIGHTEOUS BEFORE they are baptized. That sounds very Protestant.
Since the other passages says nothing about water baptism, this passage needs to be understood in Greek grammar. The Greek word “calling” is an aorist participle, which means “the action occurs before the main verb.” In this case “calling on the name of the Lord” precedes “get up & be baptized.” This is not as apparent in the English as it is Greek. So, in Greek, it would read:
Thank you, Johan. You are the type of Protestant I’m accustomed to. I’ve met so many, nowadays, who, when I tell them that Protestants have told me this is what they believe, they basically accuse me of lying.
Now, I do find this statement interesting. Most Protestants whom I’ve met, who hold your beliefs, do call it easy. They claim that the Catholic Church has unnecessarily complicated everything. So, maybe you might explain why you consider it hard not to have to prove your faith?
And I’m sure you won’t tell us, because you don’t know either. Protestants love to tell Catholics that they don’t know what Sola Scriptura is. But, when pushed, they won’t give us the meaning. But, I challenge you to do it, right now. And remember, you must produce EXPLICIT evidence from Scripture.
You’re wrong. It is passed down in Tradition and even if I had never opened the Bible, I would know that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, because the Church told me so. And it is the Church who wrote that passage in the Bible. That knowledged existed before it was written down.
I didn’t omit it. It wasn’t pertinent to the point I was making.
At that point. But St. Peter’s point progressed. Listen.
I didn’t. The verse you included did not speak the point I’m making. You’re trying to ignore the fact that God inspired the Prophets and Apostles to SPEAK and TEACH and PREACH.
Show me where St. Paul said that he was MADE righteous before circumcision. Please provide EXPLICIT evidence. If you can’t, your whole argument falls on its face.
Nope. We follow the Catholic Church.
To that I can only respond: with regard to salvation we find that the gift of God is not merely “cheap” - it is free! And what is the opposite of “easy believism” supposed to be - “hard” believism? Where does the Bible state that believing is supposed to be hard? Since you and I have not interacted before, I do not want to begin our dialogue by accusing you of having a hypocritical attitude, but I have definitely seen that mindset even among so-called Protestants: “people out there (not me of course!) are unabashed sinners—they cannot be true Christians”. Paul’s words come to my mind:
Supposed to? We have died to sin (Rom. 6:2; Gal 5:24).
“Antinomian … truly saved”. You use all those spine-chilling expressions that I wished that I would never have to see in posts written by people claiming to be Protestants/Evangelicals. Let me guess, you are one of those who distinguish between “genuine” and “false” faith as well? Tell you what: if Christ has saved us, then we are “truly saved”. Simple as that. Yes, we should grow in our faith and let ourselves be conformed in the likeness of Christ, yet never imagine that we are by ourselves no lesser sinners than the “Antinomians out there”.
I am a Christian because I believe in Christ who gave His life for me. I reject with my entire being every “gospel” (that is, in fact, no gospel at all) that states that faith in Him is not “enough” for salvation. So do you think that you have an advantage over the so-called Antinomians because you think that you are “growing” and they are not?
What kind of “Protestant” would that be? Someone who upholds the cross of Christ and asserts that those He has saved by His wounds are saved indeed?
You apparently do not understand what I wrote—to our Savior, our salvation was neither “easy” nor “free”. He bought us with His infinitely precious life, having to endure an ignominious and painful death on the cross. And coming to Him is not easy in the sense that the Father has to enable us to do that (John 6:65). But the Gospel itself is extremely simple to express:
“Justified” and “born again” are two different things. We are justified when God declares us righteous. And God justifies the ungodly who do not work but trust Him. But since you mention it, I challenge the notion (popular even among certain Protestants) that being “born again” means that we receive a new “nature”. What “nature” would that be? We are still (frail) human beings, and it is not the case that we are no longer sinning. Those who have received Christ are the children of God (John 1:12–13), but the Gospel was “preached in advance” (Gal. 3:8) to Abraham, and he believed. So was he not a child of God? I think he was.
I have done so more times than I can remember. In context:
So the Law does not justify anyone just for merely reciting or listening to it (as the Jews did regularly). If you intend to be justified through the Law, you have to keep it. But we later learn that no one will be justified before God by the works of the Law (Rom. 3:20, 28). The conclusion is that Paul wrote what he did in Rom. 2:13 to remove the false hope that certain Jews had in merely possessing the Law. That same Law condemns them because they are sinners.
You may “turn away” from sin as much as you want, but it is like “turning away” from terminal cancer—it is still there, whether you like it or not. At the end of the day, you are still a sinner. God does not regard you as obedient to the Law unless you actually keep its commands (Rom. 2:13). If you break one of its commands, you have broken them all (Jas. 2:10).
To a sinner, it is more than “a bad thing”—those who rely on the Law are under a curse (Gal. 3:10). That is because sinners tend to sin and the Law puts a curse on all who sin. That is also why those who preach salvation through the Law have been severed from grace and from Christ Himself (Gal. 5:4).
Unless you have stopped sinning altogether, you have certainly not done “your best”. And more importantly, do you really think that “doing your best” counts as obedience to the Law? Because that would be pure self-deception. Whenever you sin (and you do), the Law condemns you rather than justifies you.
Well, it certainly seems so for some…like Mary, John the baptist, Enoch, Josuah. Bezaleel, Isaiah, Job.
A Protestant who denies the necessity of works for salvation.
A Protestant who pretends to uphold the cross of Christ but denies that he must take up his cross and follow Christ, as you do.
But I’m not talking about Our Saviour’s experience. I’m talking about your denial for the need for works to prove your faith.
Well, let’s see:
Ok, thanks. Although it’s hard to pin you down, it sounds as though you deny that the OT Saints were born again during their lifetime. If that is true, I agree.
1 Peter 4:18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
Do Protestants say that? We say that we are washed of our sins and born again in the image of Christ. We call it the washing of regeneration. Our nature is human.
But, in Baptism, our souls are washed cleaner than that of a newborn infant. Since, our souls are washed of the stain of original sin.
What does Scripture say?
OK.
Correct. As he, in fact, teaches earlier also:
But, if you look at 1 Cor 6:8-10, no one will be justified who does not keep the Law. You do recognize the violations of the law listed there, don’t you?
The Law condemns those who don’t keep it. If it is true that no one can keep it, as you suggest, then all are doomed.
Sooo, God can’t wash it away in Baptism?
Does God forgive?
That means that those who deny the Sacraments have been severed from grace and from Christ, because it is in the Sacraments that we receive His grace and Himself (i.e. Eucharist).
Yep.
But when we confess our sins, God washes us of all unrighteousness.