E
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
LOL!
What you mean is: the Bible hasn’t left much for God to do.
Your beef is with the Bible then?
J
joe371
Guest
Good point.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
How do you know that you have simply believed enough?
. That pretty much covers it. But then what is God’s part. In what way is it a free gift? Does it not make an end run around Eph 2:8,9? Why start out with a performance based relationship with God when its not necessary? It doesn’t help. I always do better when I stop,give up, and let God do it.
And how would I know if I had:
Repented enough?
Accepted enough?
Did enough good works?
Was my faith good enough?
All of these, yours and PR’s, are possible only because of God. None of these happen unless there is grace. We are incapable of doing any of these without grace.
Jon
P
pablope
Guest
J
joe371
Guest
eazyduzit;12646901:
Amen to that Jon: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-…” Ephesians 2:8
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Roots of the Reformation: What it Means for Today
calledtocommunion.com/2014/10/roots-of-the-reformation-what-it-means-for-today/
Excerpt:
calledtocommunion.com/2014/10/roots-of-the-reformation-what-it-means-for-today/
Excerpt:
P
Porknpie
Guest
eazyduzit;12646901:
Jon, this is all so so so … Catholic of you to say so.
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Indeed, the bible does not say to stop working. But it denies that we can do anything to deserve the free GIFT of salvation. Jesus died to accomplish everything that is needed. He did not do a partial work and then leave some for me to do so I could get some credit too and feed my pride. Know Catholics get to heaven too, even if they have to do some hard time in Purgatory. But I don’t want to be on the same side of Paradise with those who did something to deserve being there.
Jesus has already made my salvation complete and my “work” is to “rest” in His work by faith. Heb.4:1-11.
In Jn. ch 6:28, some good Catholics asked Jesus what they could do to work the works of God. Please see the answer.
Working for God’s favor is what all other religions of the world do. Didn’t the Cross change anything?
Jesus has already made my salvation complete and my “work” is to “rest” in His work by faith. Heb.4:1-11.
In Jn. ch 6:28, some good Catholics asked Jesus what they could do to work the works of God. Please see the answer.
Working for God’s favor is what all other religions of the world do. Didn’t the Cross change anything?
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is very Catholic.
And if your church really believed that we can’t do anything to deserve the free GIFT of salvation, it would baptize babies.
Catholicism believes so deeply that salvation is a free GIFT that it even offers it to babies, who have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deserve this gift. Nothing at all.
And yet we baptize babies.
Does your church do this, eazy?
P
PRmerger
Guest
No Catholic will be in heaven because he worked “for God’s favor”, eazy.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Eternal Security and the Protestant Treadmill
While one group of Protestants is touting “once saved always saved” theology, another group is stating that you can never really be sure who has REAL faith until the end because it might turn out that one is “overcome” by the world at the last minute. I’m just curious, which of these groups is “rightly dividing the word of God” and which is wrongly dividing it? They can’t both be right—yet both claim scripture as their sole rule of faith. So much for the doctrine of sola scriptura.
When Catholics speak of mortal sin, OSAS Protestants will begin screaming about how “wrong” Catholics are to hold that someone could live a good life according to the Word of God and still lose out on salvation because they are not in a state of grace due to mortal sin at the time of their death. Yet, other Protestants will declare that if one is “overcome” by the world and does not persevere (in what? good works?) to the end, that is evidence that one does not have saving faith to being with!
Our OSAS friends are in a difficult situation for they cannot know for sure right now if they REALLY have that saving faith or not, and they won’t know this side of heaven. They realize (or should, if they are honest) that they could be overcome at some point in the future…perhaps their time of testing has not yet come.
This uncertainty is what drives much of the “good works” of Protestantism—the evangelizing, the tithing, the missionary work, etc. They do these things, in part, to give evidence that they have saving faith that perseveres to the end.
This is the treadmill they are on—and then they condemn Catholics because they mistakenly believe Catholics think they can earn their way into heaven! They attribute this false idea to Catholics because many of them are actually attempting to do that very thing themselves!
+++
So, have you been saved, brother? And how can you know for sure?
While one group of Protestants is touting “once saved always saved” theology, another group is stating that you can never really be sure who has REAL faith until the end because it might turn out that one is “overcome” by the world at the last minute. I’m just curious, which of these groups is “rightly dividing the word of God” and which is wrongly dividing it? They can’t both be right—yet both claim scripture as their sole rule of faith. So much for the doctrine of sola scriptura.
When Catholics speak of mortal sin, OSAS Protestants will begin screaming about how “wrong” Catholics are to hold that someone could live a good life according to the Word of God and still lose out on salvation because they are not in a state of grace due to mortal sin at the time of their death. Yet, other Protestants will declare that if one is “overcome” by the world and does not persevere (in what? good works?) to the end, that is evidence that one does not have saving faith to being with!
Our OSAS friends are in a difficult situation for they cannot know for sure right now if they REALLY have that saving faith or not, and they won’t know this side of heaven. They realize (or should, if they are honest) that they could be overcome at some point in the future…perhaps their time of testing has not yet come.
This uncertainty is what drives much of the “good works” of Protestantism—the evangelizing, the tithing, the missionary work, etc. They do these things, in part, to give evidence that they have saving faith that perseveres to the end.
This is the treadmill they are on—and then they condemn Catholics because they mistakenly believe Catholics think they can earn their way into heaven! They attribute this false idea to Catholics because many of them are actually attempting to do that very thing themselves!
+++
So, have you been saved, brother? And how can you know for sure?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
“The Protestant princes showed greater firmness than their theologians. Phillip of Hesse rode off without taking leave of the emperor, the others waited a month in order not to give offense……**the princes did not yield ground on any fundamental questions. They declared their faith identical with the Gospel and not disproved by the “Confutation” (the Catholic response to the Augsburg Confession).” **Holborn, pg. 213
The princes of the time were not what you would call ‘admirable’ and yet, here we learn that they were more firm on theology than were the Lutheran Theologians. Futhermore, THEY were dishonest also, in that they knew that their faith was FAR from identical with the Gospel, at least ANY previously stated ‘Gospel’.
Catholic convert and Harvard Professor of Roman Catholic Studies Christopher Dawson comments about Augsburg:
“Melanchthon, who was at once the most humanist and most conciliatory of the reformers, was well fitted to take the lead in this work, and the result of his labors was the famous Confession of Augsburg, the most un-Lutheran of Lutheran formularies, which slurs over some of the most distinctive doctrines of the new faith. It was an attempt to exaggerate the points of disagreement between Lutherans and Zwinglians, in order to minimize the disagreements between Lutherans and Catholics.
He [Melanchthon] went even further in his letter to the papal legate, Campeggio, in which **he declared that ‘we reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome and the whole heirarchy’, He goes so far as to write, ‘For no other reason are we hated as we are in Germany than because we defend and uphold the dogmas of the Roman Church with so much persistence.” **It is true that Luther had written in a similar vein in his letter to [Pope] Leo X, but that was in 1518: since then the great break had occurred and the **Roman Church had been denounced by all the leaders of the Reformation as the Seat of Anti-Christ and the Synagogue of Satan.” **Dawson, “The Dividing of Christendom”, pg. 104.
Again, Melachthon’s statement was a BALDFACED LIE. As a matter of fact, for the record, it has NEVER been a dogma of the Catholic Church that it was the seat of the Anti-Christ.
BTW Jon, since you are reading Bouyer’s wonderfully insightful book, you might want to look at page 251, where he refers to ‘the Lutheran reaction – the handing over to the civil authority of the organization and direction of the church’. I think it allows for a better understanding of why the Augsburg Confession as presented was a dishonest representation of Lutheran belief. That ‘handing over’ was pretty much completed at Augsburg, and as for the ‘practical results’, it hasn’t worked out all that well in the Scandinavian countries has it?
“It was not so much Luther as his colleague Philipp Melanchthon, Professor of Greek at Wittenberg, and praeceptor Germaniae, **who introduced the principal of dogmatic order and uniformity at the Augsburg Confession (1530). The beginning of a lengthy and messy process that refined and defined Lutheranism, culminating in another of history’s jokes, the “Book of Concord (1580). ** Not for nothing did Shakespeare refer to “spleeny Lutherans.” Professor of History at Cambridge (and presumably a Protestant), Patrick Collinson, “The Reformation, A History”, pg. 67
That’s a pretty harsh assessment of the Formula of Concord, and I would doubt that this Anglican was upset specifically with the extremely anti-Catholic nature of the Formula. I would never suggest that the Formula was a joke, but as a Catholic, I will attack it as one of the most anti-Catholic documents in Christian history, and reveal its actual text as proof.
“After Luther’s death Melanchthon translated the Augsburg Confession into Greek for the patriarch at Constantinople and in doing so actually transmuted Luther’s teaching of justification by faith into the Greek concept of the deification of man through sacramental union with the incorruptible Christ.” Bainton, pg. 115-7
Here Bainton comments that Melanchthon actually intentionally misrepresented Luther’s teaching on Justification by faith in his Greek translation. This from an author who could HARDLY be accused of being anything BUT PRO-Luther. Bainton comments further about Melanchthon at Augsburg:
"He [Melanchthon] sat in his room and wept. At the same time he explored every avenue of conciliation and even went so far as to say that the differences between the Lutherans and the Catholics were no more serious than the use of German in the mass.”, Bainton, pg. 333
Clearly Melanchthon’s heretofore unmentioned claim is ANOTHER lie. That is – UNLESS you completely redefine what is meant by the term “Catholic Church”. Isn’t THAT really the point?
Actually Jon, as I have pointed out, the actual conclusion of the CA proves my point, that it was a FAR less than honest representation of Lutheran belief. So far, how many Scholars have we seen, of all stripes, which support my position?
“The Protestant princes showed greater firmness than their theologians. Phillip of Hesse rode off without taking leave of the emperor, the others waited a month in order not to give offense……**the princes did not yield ground on any fundamental questions. They declared their faith identical with the Gospel and not disproved by the “Confutation” (the Catholic response to the Augsburg Confession).” **Holborn, pg. 213
The princes of the time were not what you would call ‘admirable’ and yet, here we learn that they were more firm on theology than were the Lutheran Theologians. Futhermore, THEY were dishonest also, in that they knew that their faith was FAR from identical with the Gospel, at least ANY previously stated ‘Gospel’.
Catholic convert and Harvard Professor of Roman Catholic Studies Christopher Dawson comments about Augsburg:
“Melanchthon, who was at once the most humanist and most conciliatory of the reformers, was well fitted to take the lead in this work, and the result of his labors was the famous Confession of Augsburg, the most un-Lutheran of Lutheran formularies, which slurs over some of the most distinctive doctrines of the new faith. It was an attempt to exaggerate the points of disagreement between Lutherans and Zwinglians, in order to minimize the disagreements between Lutherans and Catholics.
He [Melanchthon] went even further in his letter to the papal legate, Campeggio, in which **he declared that ‘we reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome and the whole heirarchy’, He goes so far as to write, ‘For no other reason are we hated as we are in Germany than because we defend and uphold the dogmas of the Roman Church with so much persistence.” **It is true that Luther had written in a similar vein in his letter to [Pope] Leo X, but that was in 1518: since then the great break had occurred and the **Roman Church had been denounced by all the leaders of the Reformation as the Seat of Anti-Christ and the Synagogue of Satan.” **Dawson, “The Dividing of Christendom”, pg. 104.
Again, Melachthon’s statement was a BALDFACED LIE. As a matter of fact, for the record, it has NEVER been a dogma of the Catholic Church that it was the seat of the Anti-Christ.
BTW Jon, since you are reading Bouyer’s wonderfully insightful book, you might want to look at page 251, where he refers to ‘the Lutheran reaction – the handing over to the civil authority of the organization and direction of the church’. I think it allows for a better understanding of why the Augsburg Confession as presented was a dishonest representation of Lutheran belief. That ‘handing over’ was pretty much completed at Augsburg, and as for the ‘practical results’, it hasn’t worked out all that well in the Scandinavian countries has it?
“It was not so much Luther as his colleague Philipp Melanchthon, Professor of Greek at Wittenberg, and praeceptor Germaniae, **who introduced the principal of dogmatic order and uniformity at the Augsburg Confession (1530). The beginning of a lengthy and messy process that refined and defined Lutheranism, culminating in another of history’s jokes, the “Book of Concord (1580). ** Not for nothing did Shakespeare refer to “spleeny Lutherans.” Professor of History at Cambridge (and presumably a Protestant), Patrick Collinson, “The Reformation, A History”, pg. 67
That’s a pretty harsh assessment of the Formula of Concord, and I would doubt that this Anglican was upset specifically with the extremely anti-Catholic nature of the Formula. I would never suggest that the Formula was a joke, but as a Catholic, I will attack it as one of the most anti-Catholic documents in Christian history, and reveal its actual text as proof.
“After Luther’s death Melanchthon translated the Augsburg Confession into Greek for the patriarch at Constantinople and in doing so actually transmuted Luther’s teaching of justification by faith into the Greek concept of the deification of man through sacramental union with the incorruptible Christ.” Bainton, pg. 115-7
Here Bainton comments that Melanchthon actually intentionally misrepresented Luther’s teaching on Justification by faith in his Greek translation. This from an author who could HARDLY be accused of being anything BUT PRO-Luther. Bainton comments further about Melanchthon at Augsburg:
"He [Melanchthon] sat in his room and wept. At the same time he explored every avenue of conciliation and even went so far as to say that the differences between the Lutherans and the Catholics were no more serious than the use of German in the mass.”, Bainton, pg. 333
Clearly Melanchthon’s heretofore unmentioned claim is ANOTHER lie. That is – UNLESS you completely redefine what is meant by the term “Catholic Church”. Isn’t THAT really the point?
T
Topper17
Guest
**“Now Melanchthon was for recognizing even the pope, whereas Luther felt that there could be no peace with the pope unless he abolished the papacy.” **Bainton, pg. 333
OK, that is a pretty serious disagreement. Clearly both of them were not right on this point, and this was only a hint of the doctrinal disagreement yet to come between these two.
Luther wanted the papacy abolished simply because HE disagreed with Catholic teaching? Could this possibly have been more arrogant?
Jon - which one was right here? Should the Pope have been recognized by the Lutherans in 1530, or should the Pope, at Luther’s suggestion, have abolished his office? Which one was right?
As for the Augsburg Confession being a “Lutheran Confesssion” and an accurate depiction of Lutheran belief:
“Calvin is notorious, however, not for his negative but for his positive judgments of Luther. Kark Holl called Calvin Luther’s best disciple, and there are historical reasons for that judgment. Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession and in the controversy with Zwingli………………David Steinmetz, “Luther in Context”, pg. 86.
This book was recommended to me by Edwin (Contarini). Steinmetz, if I remember correctly, was his Doctorial Advisor. (In fact I did read it Edwin.)
I have never heard before that Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession, but if it is true, it doesn’t speak very well for the AC (or CA) being a complete statement of Lutheran belief or in fact, even very “Lutheran”.
As Randy recently said Jon, and of course I agree, this is ‘devastating stuff’. I would add that it is not some single isolated quote possibly taken out of context. I hope that you now have a different understanding of the Augsburg Confession and the manner in which it was written and defended. In fact, I would hope that you will not portray it in the future in the same way you have in the past.
I would appreciate your comments.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
OK, that is a pretty serious disagreement. Clearly both of them were not right on this point, and this was only a hint of the doctrinal disagreement yet to come between these two.
Luther wanted the papacy abolished simply because HE disagreed with Catholic teaching? Could this possibly have been more arrogant?
Jon - which one was right here? Should the Pope have been recognized by the Lutherans in 1530, or should the Pope, at Luther’s suggestion, have abolished his office? Which one was right?
As for the Augsburg Confession being a “Lutheran Confesssion” and an accurate depiction of Lutheran belief:
“Calvin is notorious, however, not for his negative but for his positive judgments of Luther. Kark Holl called Calvin Luther’s best disciple, and there are historical reasons for that judgment. Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession and in the controversy with Zwingli………………David Steinmetz, “Luther in Context”, pg. 86.
This book was recommended to me by Edwin (Contarini). Steinmetz, if I remember correctly, was his Doctorial Advisor. (In fact I did read it Edwin.)
I have never heard before that Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession, but if it is true, it doesn’t speak very well for the AC (or CA) being a complete statement of Lutheran belief or in fact, even very “Lutheran”.
As Randy recently said Jon, and of course I agree, this is ‘devastating stuff’. I would add that it is not some single isolated quote possibly taken out of context. I hope that you now have a different understanding of the Augsburg Confession and the manner in which it was written and defended. In fact, I would hope that you will not portray it in the future in the same way you have in the past.
I would appreciate your comments.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I say we let Jon hear mass in German if he really wants to.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Randy,
God Bless You Randy, Topper
I agree, and furthermore, I would hope that he is one day finally able to receive the True Holy Eucharist, (in both kinds of course).I say we let Jon hear mass in German if he really wants to.
God Bless You Randy, Topper
J
joe371
Guest
The Catholic Church agrees with you: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-…” Ephesians 2:8
J
joe371
Guest
Either Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide His church into all truth, or it’s all up for grabs.
You can’t, even Paul did not know…
1 Corinthians 10:12: “Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.”
I already do, but thanks for the thought.Hi Randy,
I agree, and furthermore, I would hope that he is one day finally able to receive the True Holy Eucharist, (in both kinds of course).
God Bless You Randy, Topper
Jon
- Status