THe proverbial Protestant "Silver Bullet"

  • Thread starter Thread starter dumspirospero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Stingray:
And what is God’s one Truth? I agree, only one possible true interpretation for each passage of scripture. However, if the creature has the wrong interpretation this in no way impugns the perfection of God. I agree truth cannot be contradictory or it is not truth.

I know what books belong in the bible because God working through His church saw fit to make known His canon of scripture. Do you want to go into the criteria the church used for determining whether or not a book is inspired scripture? Is my answer insufficient? I don’t know what else you are looking for.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
No your answer is fine. But then it is not “sola scriptura.” God made it known through his Church, not through Scripture.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Here’s the answer. your family or preacher gave you a Bible and told you that it contained the inspired word of God. That is Tradition. Nowhere in Scripture does it say which books are part of the canon of inspired scripture. You have to look to Tradition for this.
Well, thanks for answering for me. :clapping:

Actually, that’s not how it occurred for me. I began to study at a later age after the Lord saved me. I’ve studied the issues and come to my own conclusion that the word of God is indeed inspired. You are correct, there is no inspired table of contents. I’ve already answered that God working through His church revealed to them what is His canon. Yet, His canon of scripture does not derive it’s inspiration from the church’s ability to recognize it as such.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Here’s a good Sola Scriptura question:

How do you know the books in the Bible are the inspired word of God?
I think I’ve already answered this for you in another reply. If not, get back with me and I’ll be glad to answer again.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
40.png
Stingray:
Well, thanks for answering for me. :clapping:

Actually, that’s not how it occurred for me. I began to study at a later age after the Lord saved me. I’ve studied the issues and come to my own conclusion that the word of God is indeed inspired. You are correct, there is no inspired table of contents. I’ve already answered that God working through His church revealed to them what is His canon. Yet, His canon of scripture does not derive it’s inspiration from the church’s ability to recognize it as such.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
(sorry for jumping the gun:o , don’t for get to critique post 78 too)

You’re right, his canon does not derive it’s inspriation from the Church’s ability to recognize it. It would be inspired if no one but the inspired author ever saw it. The crucial fact that we do know that it is inspired is purely a matter of Tradition. Just because it is inspiring doesn’t make it inspired. You can’t claim sola scriptura unless every rule of faith is in Scripture. One rule of Faith is that the canon we have now is the inspired word of God. You cannot, however, derive the canon we have now from Scripture alone. Do you see my point?

(sorry for posting things twice, people always miss my little posts :crying: )
 
40.png
Stingray:
And what is God’s one Truth? I agree, only one possible true interpretation for each passage of scripture. However, if the creature has the wrong interpretation this in no way impugns the perfection of God. I agree truth cannot be contradictory or it is not truth.

I know what books belong in the bible because God working through His church saw fit to make known His canon of scripture. Do you want to go into the criteria the church used for determining whether or not a book is inspired scripture? Is my answer insufficient? I don’t know what else you are looking for.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
Do you believe that Scripture is inerrant? If so, how can a fallible Church construct an infallible/inerrant canon? How can you be sure?
 
40.png
Darrel:
This debate pattern here of protestant verses Catholic and vise versa is never ending. If the truth is going to come out to all Protestants that Christ is in the Eucharist and that Eucharist is totally valid it’s going to take more than quoting scripture until we are blue in the face. I understand your position stingray I shared alot of your views for the better part of my life. I would say to all Protestants that instead of just following around in the assumption that Catholics are wrong go and investigate for yourself and see. You all have access to Christ through faith; it is not true when you assume that Catholics do not. It was never possible for me to find out the truth about the Eucharist by a Catholics words. It had to be shown to me by God. So go to the Eucharist as you are and ask God for the truth. We all share the same Holy Spirit yet are divided by teaching. Christ’s is present on both sides … of this I am sure. It’s not a matter of which side is right, it’s a matter of both sides are right and the Catholic Church has more to offer by a long shot. Is that a slap to all other Churches? Not at all but it is the truth and Christ is in the Eucharist. Given your teachings as Protestants nothing anyone can ever say will sway you. So go to God and ask him. Because guess what … believe it or not the Catholics are right.

-D
I agree with you Darrel. All the persuasion in the world cannot bring a man to the truth. In the end, it is God who does that. Yet, this does not diminish our responsibility to plant and water the seeds. We are instructed in the scriptures to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear…” (1 Peter 3:15) and we are also instructed to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3). As far as the Eucharist is concerned, I have not simply assumed that Catholics are wrong, and I don’t simply assume they don’t have access to Christ, I have tested these things as we are instructed to do in scriptures. The teachings of the CC concerning the Eucharist, I have found lacking and contrary to the truth of scripture. As far as Catholics having access to Christ, I don’t pretend to know who is and is not saved. A Catholic can be saved just like anyone else, that is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. I don’t assume all of any one denomination is saved or all of another is not. Those things are better left in the hands of God. What we are here to discuss is not whether or not any particular individual is saved, but are our teachings in conformity with God’s word. I would argue the Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist is not. You might argue that it is. It’s my hope that we could discuss these things in a friendly manner without resorting to personal attacks on one another. As far as I know, we are all here claiming to be Christians, don’t you think we should be able to demonstrate that, at least in some part, through our behavior?

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
From my upbringing and my conversation with Protestants…(I could be wrong), but they believe it is idoltry…or something like that, when it comes to wearing a Crucifix…They feel we are worshiping Idols by wearing a Crucifix.
Yeah, but it is ok to drag out all the picutures of their children, or grandchildren, or their last beach trip… and of course that would never be worship…
 
40.png
teresas1979:
The words of the “sinner’s prayer” do not matter and those who use the no Scripture basis are being pedantic. The words of many Catholic prayers have little Scriptural basis but the sinners prayer has much.

I fail to see how anyone can believe you get to say some words and “be” saved. I know people from every spectrum of Christianity and there are perhaps half a dozen at most who think that. It is truly repenting of your sins and commiting from this moment forward to Christ. You are then infused by God’s Grace with the Holy Spirit who indwells in you to help you maintain the lifelong commitment to Christ.

This is being “born-again” - you become a new creature in Christ, leaving your old sinless ways behind. Will you sin again - almost definitely. But will you be truly sorry and endeavour not to - again almost certainly. For when anyone is touched by God’s Grace they understand how truly hateful sin is, how displeasing to God it is. They are ashamed that they could offend Him who sent His Son to die for our sins and they repent to rebuild that bridge.

People who pray the sinners prayer and mean it build a lifelong relationship with the Lord thereafter. Any who brag of being saved really mean they have accepted the Lord’s gift of salvation and He now rules their life. But not one of us truly knows if we are saved as it is for God to judge…
For the most part, I was with you up till the end. I think you made some great points. Salvation is not something gained through the recital of magic words. No one is saying that, even though some would like to portray us as saying such. Salvation is from God by His grace, through faith in Jesus Christ.

The part I particularly disagree with is that an individual cannot have personal assurance of salvation. In my view, this appears to be in contradiction with the words of the apostle John when he says, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.”

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
40.png
Coptic:
Do Baptists…or other Protestant denominations find it wrong to wear a crucifix? If so, do you know why? God Bless,
Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth. I don’t know. I would be interested to hear from Protestants:

Is it OK to wear a crucifix? If so, do you make a distinction between empty crucifixes and crucifixes with Christ on them; one being OK, the other not OK?

I will relate some things which happened with a neo-Pagan (her terminology), a Unitarian, and a secular Jew.

The neo-Pagan phoned me up and kept me on the phone for seven hours. She was in a state of barely contained rage. She said that never would she permit images of Christ on the cross in her neighbourhood. Her reason was that the crucifixion, in her opinion, depicted sadism and torture and was therefore pornographic. (I’m gagging already.)

The Unitarian ripped a poster off the bulletin board and tore it into little shreds. The poster was for a performance by the World Youth Day Choir of Mozart’s Requiem; it had El Greco’s Crucifixion on it.

The secular Jew (God forgive her because I am sure she didn’t actually think these things but was only acting on the prompting of disingenuous friends) held up the same poster in front of a neighbourhood meeting and with derisive indignation posed the rhetorical question ‘why should we allow this kind of thing to be posted in our neighbourhood?’

OK, so none of these examples have to do with crucifixes. But evidently some people experience a great deal of indignation when confronted with an image (whether in the form of a necklace or in the form of a poster) of the crucifixion. Some people I know say that no crucifix should have Jesus on it because Jesus is no longer suffering on the cross; Jesus is risen! And so on.

The response of the three people I described: Frankly, I think they acted as part of a very well organized neighbourhood hate campaign against Catholics and Catholicism.

The response of those who do not want to see Jesus on the cross: I can understand their thinking to a point. But I mean why wear a cross at all if Christ is risen?

I think Catholics wear crosses with Jesus on them to keep them in mind of Jesus as a person (not an idea) who suffered for us; also to remind us of the role of suffering as a normal part of a full Christian life. Catholics, of course, have recourse to ‘offering it up’ which helps us to avoid setting every muscle in our bodies against it.
 
I’m a Lutheran, and I’ve never heard that you can’t wear a crucifix. I think our pastor even wears a crucifix.
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
she is more Catholic than she lets on…She has a statue of Mary in her front yard, holy water fonts in her house, etc…I am just helping her in her journey.
I love your mother already. She has inspired me to put that poster of El Greco’s The Crucifixion back up in the neighbourhood. Na, I’m only being a brat. A neighbour of mine tried to put up a small postcard of the Holy Family at Christmas (O pardon me – I mean the Annual Winter Solstice Holiday Festivity). She was prohibited from posting that. :ehh:

O Lord help me to acquire a front yard where I too can have a statue of Our Lady. :gopray2: Meanwhile, Lord, thank you for giving me a neck around which I may wear my crucifix. And thank you for giving me a body with which I may pick up my cross in the morning. Thank you for giving me the good sense not to sing in public but to be joyful for those who can sing. Lord please give me some more good sense so that I can know when to speak and when just to keep my big mouth shut. Oh, and there’s never too much patience in my life, Lord. The more, the merrier. FSHS Amen.
 
40.png
Stingray:
I agree with you Darrel. All the persuasion in the world cannot bring a man to the truth. In the end, it is God who does that. Yet, this does not diminish our responsibility to plant and water the seeds. We are instructed in the scriptures to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear…” (1 Peter 3:15) and we are also instructed to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3). As far as the Eucharist is concerned, I have not simply assumed that Catholics are wrong, and I don’t simply assume they don’t have access to Christ, I have tested these things as we are instructed to do in scriptures. The teachings of the CC concerning the Eucharist, I have found lacking and contrary to the truth of scripture. As far as Catholics having access to Christ, I don’t pretend to know who is and is not saved. A Catholic can be saved just like anyone else, that is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. I don’t assume all of any one denomination is saved or all of another is not. Those things are better left in the hands of God. What we are here to discuss is not whether or not any particular individual is saved, but are our teachings in conformity with God’s word. I would argue the Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist is not. You might argue that it is. It’s my hope that we could discuss these things in a friendly manner without resorting to personal attacks on one another. As far as I know, we are all here claiming to be Christians, don’t you think we should be able to demonstrate that, at least in some part, through our behavior?

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
I would agree that we can disscuss this without personal attacks that would be counter productive and a waste of time. My main issue is that this is the 10 trillionth debate on these things and everyone will walk away from it the same way they entered it. We need God to show us all the truth regarding these matters I hope that Catholics and Protestants alike will pray for this. If we share the same spirit we should share the same truth. A house divided against it’s self can not stand. Is it tradition to dissagree or is it something that Christ’s would prefer we unite on? I suppose I could curb my attitude that this is like beating a dead horse after a while. My big push on the Eucharist is the fact that once a Christian knows it is real all of the other differences like Mary and saints along with sacrimentals fall to the wayside in obediance to Gods truth.

-D
 
40.png
Stingray:
hello. CARM is the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. They can be found at carm.org/index.html Their boards are great. I spend a lot of my time on the Catholic board. There are many Catholic regulars there and we have some really good discussions. Right now the Catholic board is down, but there is an alternate board available and the regular board should be up soon. You should check it out sometime.
Thank you for answering that question and for the invitation. I am a little too thoroughly burned out with interdenominational apologetics right now to take you up on it, however. I think I will just stay here for a bit and rest. Raincheck? In any case, I can always drop in on a ‘robust debate’ here at CA.
40.png
Stingray:
I’ve never met any protestant who taught that once one is saved they can sin all they want to.
To be fair, I think this is just one of those areas of Protestantism that is esoteric or inconsistent or whatever. But the emphasis of Protestant teaching certainly seems to have been on avoiding the occasion of sin as well as avoiding sin itself.

What I am saying is here how it strikes me: Some Protestants argue for Once Saved, Always Saved. However they do a lot of running around making sure they are not ‘backsliding.’ A generalism to be sure. I own that. Moreover, it seems a little inconsistent, but I think it is morally sound, so who am I to quibble? Ultimately I am appealing to both Protestants and Catholics not to get polarized on this issue because, to a large extent, it is a false issue.

I think some of the disagreement around Once Saved Always Saved revolves around some questionable translation work done subsequent to the Reformation on the term ‘works.’ The best apologetic I have read on this was posted on another board by Mary (one of our regulars). I quote it in the subsequent post:
 
Stingray,

Much of your speak sounds very Catholic. Sometimes I get the impression you are hear to “teach us.” If this is so, you are “preaching to the choir.”

A choir that has 2000 years of teaching behind it.

Where you lose us is “once save always saved” stance. You seem to stick with ONE or TWO Sripture verses… and that is it. You have landed.

I assume, being a great Christian you are, you have read the ENTIRE Bible. There are other passages that shed a different light regarding salvation.

Plus, your “sola Scriptura” approach is … well… unBiblical. The Bible needs a teacher. The Bible was never even intended to be the “sole” rule of authority… and our ONLY teacher.

One who is unfamiliar with Christianity can not just grab a Bible … sit under a tree… and all of a sudden be a “holder of the Truth.”

Our journey is just that… A JOURNEY. One does not just face God and point to Jesus to cover the “dung hill” that we are. Christ CALLS us to BECOME something.

Our conversation here has TONS of common ground. But, where I leave you is… If God TRULY loves me… He wants to CHANGE me. He will not accept the “dung hill” covered by His son. He TRULY loves me… and he will truly bring me to salvation.

Why? Because I have FAITH in all He has revealed. He made the first move… I made the next. I reach back. OBEDIANCE.

I will WORK out my salvation. Just like Paul did. I can’t do it by myself. Only our Lord can help me.

This forum does not even have the room to hold the many wonderful changes He has made in my life. I know He is present in me. I am not worried about His end of the bargin… I pray concerning MINE. I am a sinner… and my sinful nature can send me backwards. On my own free will… I can choose to lead the life of “ME” again.

You may call it “backsliding.” (then you may say… "they were never saved to begin with)

oh… you bring up too many topics. The Eucharist was a huge one. You say that “protestant thought” was present before the reformation??? Here is your homework… go read the early Church Fathers… find what they said about THE EUCHARIST.

Funny how after 1500… after the thousands of splinters… and through the 500 years… certain churches get further and further away from THE EUCHARIST.

Not us.
 
Here is that quote from Mary who clears up quite beautifully the confusion around the term ‘works’:
40.png
Mary:
James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”

In addition to their belief in the Bible alone (“sola Scriptura”), most Protestants believe that all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior in order to be justified by God (justification is the process by which man, moved by grace, turns toward God and away from sin, and accepts God’s forgiveness and righteousness). Thus, most Protestants believe that one is justified and saved by His faith in Christ alone (called “sola Fide” or Faith alone). But if this is true, then why does James say that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?

James says this because we are justified, and ultimately saved, through both our faith and works, and not just faith alone. In fact, the only place in the Bible where the phrase “faith alone” appears is in James 2:24 where it says we are justified by works and NOT by faith alone. So the Bible never teaches anywhere that we are justified, saved, or anything else, by faith alone. While on its face the Catholic position seems obvious, the theology of faith and works in the matter of salvation is actually quite complicated, and has been one of the main sources of division between Catholicism and Protestantism. Hence, a couple of points should be made to address the controversy and clarify Catholic teaching.
First, Catholics ultimately believe that we are saved, not by faith or works, but by Jesus Christ and Him alone. Jesus Christ’s death and Resurrection is the sole source of our justification (being in a right relationship with God) and salvation (sharing in God’s divine life). But as a result of Christ’s death and resurrection, we are now able to receive God’s grace. Grace is God’s own divine life which He infuses into our souls. It is what Adam initially lost for us, and Christ won back for us. This grace initially causes us to seek God and to believe in Him (the “faith” part). Non-Catholics generally stop here.

But God desires us to respond to His grace by putting our faith into action (the “works” part). This is why Jesus always taught about our salvation in the context of what we actually did during our earthly lives, and not how much faith we had (“whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did to Me.” Matthew 25:40,45). When Jesus teaches about His second coming where He will separate the sheep from the goats, He bases salvation and damnation upon what we actually did (“works”), whether righteous or evil. Matthew 25:31-46. In James 2:14-26, James is similarly instructing us to put our faith into action by performing good works, and not just giving an intellectual assent of faith. James says such “faith apart from works is dead.” James 2:17,26.

So we must do more than accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. Even the demons believe Jesus is Savior, and yet “they tremble.” James 2:19. We must also do good works. Faith is the beginning of a process that leads us toward justification, but faith alone never obtains the grace of justification. Faith and works acting together achieve our justification. Saint Paul says it best when he writes that we need “faith working in love.” Galatians 5:6. We are not justified and saved by faith alone.
Continued…
 
Here is that quote from Mary who clears up quite beautifully the confusion around the term ‘works’:
40.png
Mary:
James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”

In addition to their belief in the Bible alone (“sola Scriptura”), most Protestants believe that all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior in order to be justified by God (justification is the process by which man, moved by grace, turns toward God and away from sin, and accepts God’s forgiveness and righteousness). Thus, most Protestants believe that one is justified and saved by His faith in Christ alone (called “sola Fide” or Faith alone). But if this is true, then why does James say that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?

James says this because we are justified, and ultimately saved, through both our faith and works, and not just faith alone. In fact, the only place in the Bible where the phrase “faith alone” appears is in James 2:24 where it says we are justified by works and NOT by faith alone. So the Bible never teaches anywhere that we are justified, saved, or anything else, by faith alone. While on its face the Catholic position seems obvious, the theology of faith and works in the matter of salvation is actually quite complicated, and has been one of the main sources of division between Catholicism and Protestantism. Hence, a couple of points should be made to address the controversy and clarify Catholic teaching.
First, Catholics ultimately believe that we are saved, not by faith or works, but by Jesus Christ and Him alone. Jesus Christ’s death and Resurrection is the sole source of our justification (being in a right relationship with God) and salvation (sharing in God’s divine life). But as a result of Christ’s death and resurrection, we are now able to receive God’s grace. Grace is God’s own divine life which He infuses into our souls. It is what Adam initially lost for us, and Christ won back for us. This grace initially causes us to seek God and to believe in Him (the “faith” part). Non-Catholics generally stop here.

But God desires us to respond to His grace by putting our faith into action (the “works” part). This is why Jesus always taught about our salvation in the context of what we actually did during our earthly lives, and not how much faith we had (“whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did to Me.” Matthew 25:40,45). When Jesus teaches about His second coming where He will separate the sheep from the goats, He bases salvation and damnation upon what we actually did (“works”), whether righteous or evil. Matthew 25:31-46. In James 2:14-26, James is similarly instructing us to put our faith into action by performing good works, and not just giving an intellectual assent of faith. James says such “faith apart from works is dead.” James 2:17,26.

So we must do more than accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. Even the demons believe Jesus is Savior, and yet “they tremble.” James 2:19. We must also do good works. Faith is the beginning of a process that leads us toward justification, but faith alone never obtains the grace of justification. Faith and works acting together achieve our justification. Saint Paul says it best when he writes that we need “faith working in love.” Galatians 5:6. We are not justified and saved by faith alone.
Continued…
 
Here is that quote from Mary who clears up quite beautifully the confusion around the term ‘works’:
40.png
Mary:
James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”

In addition to their belief in the Bible alone (“sola Scriptura”), most Protestants believe that all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior in order to be justified by God (justification is the process by which man, moved by grace, turns toward God and away from sin, and accepts God’s forgiveness and righteousness). Thus, most Protestants believe that one is justified and saved by His faith in Christ alone (called “sola Fide” or Faith alone). But if this is true, then why does James say that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?

James says this because we are justified, and ultimately saved, through both our faith and works, and not just faith alone. In fact, the only place in the Bible where the phrase “faith alone” appears is in James 2:24 where it says we are justified by works and NOT by faith alone. So the Bible never teaches anywhere that we are justified, saved, or anything else, by faith alone. While on its face the Catholic position seems obvious, the theology of faith and works in the matter of salvation is actually quite complicated, and has been one of the main sources of division between Catholicism and Protestantism. Hence, a couple of points should be made to address the controversy and clarify Catholic teaching.
First, Catholics ultimately believe that we are saved, not by faith or works, but by Jesus Christ and Him alone. Jesus Christ’s death and Resurrection is the sole source of our justification (being in a right relationship with God) and salvation (sharing in God’s divine life). But as a result of Christ’s death and resurrection, we are now able to receive God’s grace. Grace is God’s own divine life which He infuses into our souls. It is what Adam initially lost for us, and Christ won back for us. This grace initially causes us to seek God and to believe in Him (the “faith” part). Non-Catholics generally stop here.

But God desires us to respond to His grace by putting our faith into action (the “works” part). This is why Jesus always taught about our salvation in the context of what we actually did during our earthly lives, and not how much faith we had (“whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did to Me.” Matthew 25:40,45). When Jesus teaches about His second coming where He will separate the sheep from the goats, He bases salvation and damnation upon what we actually did (“works”), whether righteous or evil. Matthew 25:31-46. In James 2:14-26, James is similarly instructing us to put our faith into action by performing good works, and not just giving an intellectual assent of faith. James says such “faith apart from works is dead.” James 2:17,26.

So we must do more than accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. Even the demons believe Jesus is Savior, and yet “they tremble.” James 2:19. We must also do good works. Faith is the beginning of a process that leads us toward justification, but faith alone never obtains the grace of justification. Faith and works acting together achieve our justification. Saint Paul says it best when he writes that we need “faith working in love.” Galatians 5:6. We are not justified and saved by faith alone.
Continued…
 
Here is some more of what Mary writes on faith and works:
40.png
Mary:
Secondly, it is important to distinguish between the “works” James taught about in James 2:24 and the “works of the law” Saint Paul taught about in Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; and Eph. 2:8-9. Protestants generally confuse James’ “good works” from Paul’s “works of the law” when they attempt to prove that “works” are irrelevant to justification and salvation. The “works of the law” Paul taught about in Ephesians 2:8-9 and elsewhere referred to the Mosaic law and their legal system that made God obligated to reward them for their works. They would thus “boast” about their works by attributing their works to themselves. Cf. Rom. 4:2; Eph. 2:9. Saint Paul taught that, with the coming of Christ, the Mosaic (moral, legal, and ceremonial) law which made God a debtor to us no longer justified a person. Instead, Paul taught that we are now justified and saved by grace (not legal obligation) through faith (not works of law). Eph. 2:5,8. Hence, we no longer “boast” by attributing our works to ourselves. We attribute them to God who gives everything to us freely by His grace.

Therefore, we are no longer required to fulfill the “works of law,” but to fulfill the “law of Christ” Gal. 6:2. This is why Paul writes that the “doers of the law (of Christ)” will be justified. Rom. 2:13. Of course, the “works of the law” Paul wrote about in Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10 and Eph. 2:8-9 have nothing to do with the “good works” James is teaching in James 2:24 or the “law” Paul is teaching about in Rom. 2:13 (because they are part of the same Word of God which can never contradict itself).

So based on the Scriptures, the Church has taught for 2,000 years that we are justified and saved by the grace and mercy of Christ through both faith and works, and not faith alone. We are no longer in a legal system of debt where God owes us (creditor/debtor). We are now in a system of grace where God rewards our works when done with faith in Christ (Father/child). This also means that we must continue to exercise our faith and works to the end of our lives in order to be saved. This is why Jesus told us to “endure to the end” to be saved. Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13. This is also why Saint Paul warned us that we could even lose our salvation if we did not persevere. cf. Romans 11:20-23; 1 Corinthians 9:27. This Catholic belief contradicts the novel Protestant notion of “once saved, always saved.”
Thanks Mary.
 
growing up as a fundamentalist and converting, I have become aware of all the loopholes they have for their “once saved, always saved” beliefs. and they don’t even realize they do it - but they ALL do. as far as the crucifix versus the cross on our necks - I’ve been asked why I would continually hang Jesus day after day when he is risen from the dead. I think that person would find it more appropriate to wear a rock around their neck as a symbol of the stone being rolled away from the empty tomb. it would be nice to rejoice in that truth with such a symbol but I doubt anyone would look at the rock on my neck and know why it’s there.
 
40.png
michaelp:
Protestant carries a negative connotation and is rather pejorative…let the followers of Trent call themselves Roman Catholic. 😉
I call myself Catholic. I have already spoken to you about this. And you conceded. Now you have recanted. Am I surprised? No.

Those who wish to sow confusion by relanguaging (and then unilaterally dominating what gets said) are among those who add the prefix ‘Roman.’

I can understand why someone needing to challenge the ‘universality’ of the Catholic Church would want to qualify the term ‘Catholic’ with the term ‘Roman.’

I can understand why someone wanting to appropriate the term ‘catholic’ (ie, ‘universal’) for themselves would want to qualify the term ‘Catholic’ with the term ‘Roman.’

These rhetorical moves are indeed sly – but doomed, because they are transparent and do not demonstrate good faith.

Catholics are known by the name ‘Catholic.’ Protestants are known by the name(s)…what? Non-Catholic? Evangelical? Any number of things, it seems to me, which then change. Notwithstanding the apparent mutability of non-Catholic terminology, I am sure we would agree to anything you wish to call yourselves – in the interest of good faith. However, good faith is a two-way street, at least where discussion is concerned. Your recanting of your concession to the term ‘Catholic’ does not demonstrate good faith.

Bottom line: looks like pejorative terminology (according to your way of thinking) is OK when denoting Catholics, but not OK when denoting Protestants. Reality check: it’s never OK.

So ‘Roman Catholic’ you want, have it your way. It does not change the catholic nature of the Catholic Church. As for not wanting the term ‘Protestant’: your point is? Our point is this: since you have persisted with your unilateral relanguaging, why should we feel any motivation whatsoever to amend our terminology in favour of yours? ‘Protestant’ is most likely what you’ve stuck yourself with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top