Question for Protestants

28,092 Views | 531 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by dermdoc
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the bigger issue is saying "faith alone" when the fathers and the scriptures don't say "faith alone" and in fact specifically negate "faith alone".

The next step in this plan is spilling gallons of ink to defend just what you mean when you say "faith alone" - which is somehow code for "faith and necessary good works".

And, shockingly, a few centuries later not only do we have schism after schism, but most sects thinks faith alone actually means what it apparently says, and you have generations of Protestants teaching and believing that good works are not necessary for salvation.

The entire issue is over two things: merit and timing. Merit, to me, is a complete dead end and no-good very bad theological premise to argue, and I'll be glad to completely bow out as it is a framework the East does not participate in.

The timing issue is trying to unscrew the inscrutable and draw hard categorizations between being made righteous (justification) and being made holy (sanctification) as separate and distinct parts of salvation. To have the whole argument about whether faith alone or faith + action justifies you first have to accept the premise that justification is a distinct thing in time, defined in a certain narrow sense, and mostly consisting of receiving forgiveness of sins... AND you have to define faith in a certain narrow sense - "when each one believes individually that Christ is given for him".

So my mistake here is engaging with Protestants in general, because some of them believe in faith alone (does what it says on the tin) and the earlier confessional Lutherans believe in faith alone (where faith is individual belief) but that good works are necessary thereafter...

... neither of which align with the tradition of the East, as should be unfortunately expected by centuries of schism.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Enough straw in your post to make these.

PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You have quoted the Pope, but have not understood what he is saying. Maybe just leave the RCC out of your opinions moving forward.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are you implying that in order to decipher what the pope is saying, you have to be aligned with or have a background with the RCC? Seems complicated.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And the irony of Zobel, who buys ink by the barrel, saying this:

Quote:

The next step in this plan is spilling gallons of ink to defend just what you mean when you say "faith alone"
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If you think I write a lot you should definitely not slog through Melanchthon.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

If you think I write a lot you should definitely not slog through Melanchthon.
I haven't read Melanchthon, but I am amazed at the literary output of people prior to electricity and quality eyeglasses. Can you imagine reading and writing the amounts that they did by only candlelight and fireplaces? I am in awe of them.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jeez and nevermind writing and editing!
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No wonder the pope is infallible; it was too much work to edit something previously written.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

No wonder the pope is infallible; it was too much work to edit something previously written.


Not Catholic but I believe the Pope is only infallible when he is "ex officio" which is very, very rare.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Jeez and nevermind writing and editing!
What is further amazing is how little editing they actually did. At least, the copies of the originals we have do not show signs of editing. They may have written drafts and discarded them, but all indications are that they had much more prodigious mental capabilities than we do today and were capable of writing incredible works spontaneously.

I got a taste of that once with a man I met when I was a recent college grad. The man was Harold Ockenga who is unknown today but was a giant in evangelicalism back in the 1940s-1970s. He pastored a church in Boston while simultaneously founding and acting as first President of Fuller Theological Seminary in California (Fuller was very conservative theologically back then, unlike today.) What was astounding about Dr. Ockenga was that he knew the entire Bible from memory. He was also a truly humble man who spent a lot of time with this young man washing pots and pans at a retreat center where I was working and he was the featured speaker.

Billy Graham described him as "a giant among giants."

The Lost Giant Among Giants: Lessons from Harold John Ockenga (190585) | Desiring God

Dr. Harold John Ockenga - Gordon-Conwell Institute (gordonconwell.edu)
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

No wonder the pope is infallible; it was too much work to edit something previously written.


Not Catholic but I believe the Pope is only infallible when he is "ex officio" which is very, very rare.


Well I have asked for a list of all the times the popes have been "ex officio" and haven't been given anything. So my assumption now is that it is either all or nothing.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

No wonder the pope is infallible; it was too much work to edit something previously written.


Not Catholic but I believe the Pope is only infallible when he is "ex officio" which is very, very rare.


Well I have asked for a list of all the times the popes have been "ex officio" and haven't been given anything. So my assumption now is that it is either all or nothing.

https://uscatholic.org/articles/201105/is-there-a-list-of-infallible-teachings/
The last time was in 1950.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jabin said:

And the irony of Zobel, who buys ink by the barrel, saying this:

Quote:

The next step in this plan is spilling gallons of ink to defend just what you mean when you say "faith alone"


I know. It's kind of sad.

Imagine all the ink spilled around the two Natures of Christ. How wasteful of everyone. We probably should have just accepted any of the claims and moved on. All the ink...won't someone think of the children

Because it's definitely not people like Zobel and Rome who are either intentionally or unintentionally understanding Sola Fide that leads to the issues.

Even though, as I've shown Sola Fide has been stated from the beginning and works have been shown to be apart of a Christians life.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

You have quoted the Pope, but have not understood what he is saying. Maybe just leave the RCC out of your opinions moving forward.

Lol...I certainly understand what he said.

And given all of the followers of Rome who give opinions on Luther and Protestants, I'll think I'll continue to post as I please. Thanks.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

No wonder the pope is infallible; it was too much work to edit something previously written.


Not Catholic but I believe the Pope is only infallible when he is "ex officio" which is very, very rare.


Well I have asked for a list of all the times the popes have been "ex officio" and haven't been given anything. So my assumption now is that it is either all or nothing.


Ex Cathedra is the common parlance
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

I think the bigger issue is saying "faith alone" when the fathers and the scriptures don't say "faith alone" and in fact specifically negate "faith alone".

The next step in this plan is spilling gallons of ink to defend just what you mean when you say "faith alone" - which is somehow code for "faith and necessary good works".

And, shockingly, a few centuries later not only do we have schism after schism, but most sects thinks faith alone actually means what it apparently says, and you have generations of Protestants teaching and believing that good works are not necessary for salvation.

The entire issue is over two things: merit and timing. Merit, to me, is a complete dead end and no-good very bad theological premise to argue, and I'll be glad to completely bow out as it is a framework the East does not participate in.

The timing issue is trying to unscrew the inscrutable and draw hard categorizations between being made righteous (justification) and being made holy (sanctification) as separate and distinct parts of salvation. To have the whole argument about whether faith alone or faith + action justifies you first have to accept the premise that justification is a distinct thing in time, defined in a certain narrow sense, and mostly consisting of receiving forgiveness of sins... AND you have to define faith in a certain narrow sense - "when each one believes individually that Christ is given for him".

So my mistake here is engaging with Protestants in general, because some of them believe in faith alone (does what it says on the tin) and the earlier confessional Lutherans believe in faith alone (where faith is individual belief) but that good works are necessary thereafter...

... neither of which align with the tradition of the East, as should be unfortunately expected by centuries of schism.


This might be my favorite Zobel post ever, mainly because there were no references to saints like St Boris the Hesychast or St Hermit of Fartstopol that I've never heard of
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
St Hermit is way too based for this forum
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Huh. I thought Sola Fide meant you cook your steak in a water bath for a couple of hours.
The BQ Jock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There have been two Ex Cathedra declarations. The Immaculate Conception (Pope Pius IX in 1854) and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven (Pope Pius XII in 1950).
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am not debating the truth of that, however it just seems unbelievable for there to have been roughly 1800 years from the church in Acts to when the first recorded instance occurred.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The BQ Jock said:

There have been two Ex Cathedra declarations. The Immaculate Conception (Pope Pius IX in 1854) and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven (Pope Pius XII in 1950).
Not really an exhaustive list. The east/west schism didn't happen in 1854 over the immaculate conception, but in 1054 as the bishop of Rome declaring unilaterally the ability to say the Holy Spirit precedes from both the Father and Son. The pope didn't declare this authority and then sit on it for 800 years.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

I am not debating the truth of that, however it just seems unbelievable for there to have been roughly 1800 years from the church in Acts to when the first recorded instance occurred.

There's pretty significant disagreement among Roman Catholic scholars on just how many there are.

There's no infallible list of the infallible statements, so everyone is technically guessing.

The most common belief is there are 2, but as you point out...that's kind of wild if you really think about it.

Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
one MEEN Ag said:

The BQ Jock said:

There have been two Ex Cathedra declarations. The Immaculate Conception (Pope Pius IX in 1854) and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven (Pope Pius XII in 1950).
Not really an exhaustive list. The east/west schism didn't happen in 1854 over the immaculate conception, but in 1054 as the bishop of Rome declaring unilaterally the ability to say the Holy Spirit precedes from both the Father and Son. The pope didn't declare this authority and then sit on it for 800 years.

ONE SPIRATION
N
E
S
P
I
R
A
T
I
O
N
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am about halfway through one of Sproul's series on Justification through Faith. He recently was explaining about the "infusion" of grace through the sacrament of baptism that the RCC abides by. And then if any mortal sin occurs, the sacrament of penance is needed in order for another "infusion." He actually was defending the RCC in some other spots where he calls it "scandalous slander" in which some claim the RCC dismisses the idea of faith playing a role, which is not true. I am always curious if he is representing the RCC side well (in the eyes of Catholic folks).
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And I should have posted ex cathedra rather than ex officio as the times when the Pope is infallible.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
allegedly
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

I am about halfway through one of Sproul's series on Justification through Faith. He recently was explaining about the "infusion" of grace through the sacrament of baptism that the RCC abides by. And then if any mortal sin occurs, the sacrament of penance is needed in order for another "infusion." He actually was defending the RCC in some other spots where he calls it "scandalous slander" in which some claim the RCC dismisses the idea of faith playing a role, which is not true. I am always curious if he is representing the RCC side well (in the eyes of Catholic folks).
I've never neem able to make sense of his explanation of the economy of works within a system where you're entirely justified by faith, while at the same time are powerless to actually impact your own salvation.

There seems to be some sort of Catch-22 combined with a no true scotsman, where a person is predestined to go to Heaven through literally zero agency of their own, yet they're saved by faith AND will do works to show that they're one of the elect. If their faith does not lead them to do works then it means that they actually were never saved and are not one of the pre-elect.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No. I think RC Sproul does not represent the Catholic view of Justification and Sanctification properly or in context. He maybe more charitable than John MacArthur but he still misrepresents Catholic doctrine and belief. The confusion comes from using the same words like justification and trying to use Protestant definitions or meanings while explaining Catholic doctrine and thus causing much needless confusion and conflation of the issues. If you want to understand Catholic teaching I would suggest you seek out Catholic sources. Otherwise you will only become more confused and further away from what the RCC teaches.

Someone on here said recently it would be similar to asking an Englishman if he would like a biscuit. He understands biscuit to mean something entirely differently than we do.

I've listened to part 1 and listening to part 2 now and Sproul has me completely confused on what he's trying to say we believe. He fails to grasp the teaching of the RCC in my view.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for the input. I don't disagree in theory, but the issue I am coming across even on these threads is that those that subscribe to the RCC teachings often have these dogmatic sayings that just don't make any sense to me. So having a Catholic dumb it down for me seems rare and likely the opposite is true as well.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes. I think one of the most difficult issues to overcome on both sides is to recognize that we are often talking past each other. We are using the same terminology but we do not necessarily mean the same thing by the use of the term. So when these guys tell you the RCC says "X" and I am getting "X" directly from the Catechism so this is the "official teaching of the church" which means "Y" because we Protestants understand "X" to mean "Y" - so look how the RCC distorts the truth so the RCC is clearly wrong - yeah they are just causing more confusion.

When one grows up under a tradition and ascribe the meanings and understanding of their tradition to words it becomes impossible to even see that the meanings might be understood differently by others. For example, the word pray comes to mind. Catholics "pray" to Mary and the Saints and by "pray" we mean "ask" for their intercession. When Protestants use the term pray it becomes synonymous with worship and they see praying to Mary as worshiping Mary instead of asking Mary to intercede for us sinners. Every Catholic understands we only worship God, but Protestants accuse what they see as idolatry.

"From the inside looking out vs. the outside looking in"
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Faithful Ag said:

Yes. I think one of the most difficult issues to overcome on both sides is to recognize that we are often talking past each other. We are using the same terminology but we do not necessarily mean the same thing by the use of the term. So when these guys tell you the RCC says "X" and I am getting "X" directly from the Catechism so this is the "official teaching of the church" which means "Y" because we Protestants understand "X" to mean "Y" - so look how the RCC distorts the truth so the RCC is clearly wrong - yeah they are just causing more confusion.

When one grows up under a tradition and ascribe the meanings and understanding of their tradition to words it becomes impossible to even see that the meanings might be understood differently by others. For example, the word pray comes to mind. Catholics "pray" to Mary and the Saints and by "pray" we mean "ask" for their intercession. When Protestants use the term pray it becomes synonymous with worship and they see praying to Mary as worshiping Mary instead of asking Mary to intercede for us sinners. Every Catholic understands we only worship God, but Protestants accuse what they see as idolatry.

"From the inside looking out vs. the outside looking in"
Agree. Lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication by both sides.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
88Warrior
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We all make this harder than it is. Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your savior? Do you believe he was crucified, dead and buried for your/our sins and on the third day rose from the dead and now sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty? If yes I truly believe you're good and that your heart and soul should be stirred/moved to do good works for others and be a bright light in a dark world…imho….
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
88Warrior said:

We all make this harder than it is. Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your savior? Do you believe he was crucified, dead and buried for your/our sins and on the third day rose from the dead and now sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty? If yes I truly believe you're good and that your heart and soul should be stirred/moved to do good works for others and be a bright light in a dark world…imho….
Amen.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't know how to make it any simpler that Sola Scriptura.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.