Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
Pretty much everything RC Sproul says in this lecture is wrong. His entire representation of Catholic teaching and doctrine is flawed and twisted in order to fit his own Reformed theology. I listened to the entire thing and I honestly don't think he said anything that would rightly be considered correct Catholic theology and doctrine, and if he did state something correctly he immediately followed it up by butchering the meaning and application of what was said in his so-called explanation of Catholic belief. Sproul takes the term "Justification" and repeatedly abuses and contorts it's use and meaning only allowing for the Reformed Protestant view and ignoring the Catholic view. Catholics believe in Initial Justification and Ongoing Justification (Sanctification).
This lecture highlights the difficulty in having fruitful dialog in these Catholic/Protestant discussions because we often say the same words but those words have completely different meanings and connotations depending on your theological upbringing, foundation, and understanding (ie "Traditions"). Words, texts, and teachings are twisted leading to error and one's own destruction. This issue also highlights why Sola Scriptura is problematic. It is not the words or texts that are at issue, but rather the meaning and interpretation of the words and texts. The Bible is not self-interpreting as evidenced by the countless interpretations that exist within modern Christianity. To make it even worse Sproul attempts to acknowledge the different meanings we have and then he suffocates the Catholic meaning for the remainder of the lecture.
Sproul conflates Justification and Sanctification as one and the same thing. The difference in our theology is the question of what role the individual has in their own Sanctification process. Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and all faithful Christians prior to the Protest) have always understood that our path to Salvation is an ongoing process of Sanctification and not a one-time decision at a specific moment in time. The teaching of "Once Saved Always Saved" and the assurance of salvation is unbiblical and foreign to Christian belief prior to the Reformation. We were saved by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we are being saved by our acceptance and belief in Jesus by loving him and living our lives in accordance with his will to the best of our abilities… and when we sin and turn against him we must repent and seek his forgiveness for our disobedience, and we have a real hope and confidence that because we are living for and walking with God we will be saved.
Salvation is a past, present, and future event for each individual Christian. We must take up our cross daily and follow him. Enter by the narrow gate. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Catholics do NOT believe we are saved by our own effort. There is nothing we can do of our own that can earn us a place in Heaven nor make us worthy of Heaven. We are not saved by "Faith Alone" but rather we are saved by our faithfulness to God and must live this faithfulness daily. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and we are Sanctified by living our lives in cooperation with God's will. This is where repentance and confession of our sins (especially mortal sins) enter the conversation. When we intentionally turn from God and commit sin that is deadly, we must repent and seek to repair the damage that we have done to our relationship. This process is necessary to our sanctification and is our participation in the process of our salvation. We must live our lives in ongoing faithfulness.
When it comes to RC Sproul explaining Catholic beliefs I have found him to be one of the worst theologically, least charitable, and most offensive anti-catholic "pastors" there is.
ETA: our initial justification and our final justification are not one and the same thing.
dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
Pretty much everything RC Sproul says in this lecture is wrong. His entire representation of Catholic teaching and doctrine is flawed and twisted in order to fit his own Reformed theology. I listened to the entire thing and I honestly don't think he said anything that would rightly be considered correct Catholic theology and doctrine, and if he did state something correctly he immediately followed it up by butchering the meaning and application of what was said in his so-called explanation of Catholic belief. Sproul takes the term "Justification" and repeatedly abuses and contorts it's use and meaning only allowing for the Reformed Protestant view and ignoring the Catholic view. Catholics believe in Initial Justification and Ongoing Justification (Sanctification).
This lecture highlights the difficulty in having fruitful dialog in these Catholic/Protestant discussions because we often say the same words but those words have completely different meanings and connotations depending on your theological upbringing, foundation, and understanding (ie "Traditions"). Words, texts, and teachings are twisted leading to error and one's own destruction. This issue also highlights why Sola Scriptura is problematic. It is not the words or texts that are at issue, but rather the meaning and interpretation of the words and texts. The Bible is not self-interpreting as evidenced by the countless interpretations that exist within modern Christianity. To make it even worse Sproul attempts to acknowledge the different meanings we have and then he suffocates the Catholic meaning for the remainder of the lecture.
Sproul conflates Justification and Sanctification as one and the same thing. The difference in our theology is the question of what role the individual has in their own Sanctification process. Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and all faithful Christians prior to the Protest) have always understood that our path to Salvation is an ongoing process of Sanctification and not a one-time decision at a specific moment in time. The teaching of "Once Saved Always Saved" and the assurance of salvation is unbiblical and foreign to Christian belief prior to the Reformation. We were saved by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we are being saved by our acceptance and belief in Jesus by loving him and living our lives in accordance with his will to the best of our abilities… and when we sin and turn against him we must repent and seek his forgiveness for our disobedience, and we have a real hope and confidence that because we are living for and walking with God we will be saved.
Salvation is a past, present, and future event for each individual Christian. We must take up our cross daily and follow him. Enter by the narrow gate. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Catholics do NOT believe we are saved by our own effort. There is nothing we can do of our own that can earn us a place in Heaven nor make us worthy of Heaven. We are not saved by "Faith Alone" but rather we are saved by our faithfulness to God and must live this faithfulness daily. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and we are Sanctified by living our lives in cooperation with God's will. This is where repentance and confession of our sins (especially mortal sins) enter the conversation. When we intentionally turn from God and commit sin that is deadly, we must repent and seek to repair the damage that we have done to our relationship. This process is necessary to our sanctification and is our participation in the process of our salvation. We must live our lives in ongoing faithfulness.
When it comes to RC Sproul explaining Catholic beliefs I have found him to be one of the worst theologically, least charitable, and most offensive anti-catholic "pastors" there is.
ETA: our initial justification and our final justification are not one and the same thing.
I have finally learned not to click on Reformed/Calvinist theologians as they make me angry. And I want to respond. There is a reason only 1-3% of Christians call themselves Calvinists. And I love our Reformed/Calvinist posters on here. I do not understand their theology at all so it is probably me.
So I am going to stay away from guys like MacArthur, Sproul, (God rest their souls) and Piper. Much less spiritual stress.
Howdy, it is me! said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
Pretty much everything RC Sproul says in this lecture is wrong. His entire representation of Catholic teaching and doctrine is flawed and twisted in order to fit his own Reformed theology. I listened to the entire thing and I honestly don't think he said anything that would rightly be considered correct Catholic theology and doctrine, and if he did state something correctly he immediately followed it up by butchering the meaning and application of what was said in his so-called explanation of Catholic belief. Sproul takes the term "Justification" and repeatedly abuses and contorts it's use and meaning only allowing for the Reformed Protestant view and ignoring the Catholic view. Catholics believe in Initial Justification and Ongoing Justification (Sanctification).
This lecture highlights the difficulty in having fruitful dialog in these Catholic/Protestant discussions because we often say the same words but those words have completely different meanings and connotations depending on your theological upbringing, foundation, and understanding (ie "Traditions"). Words, texts, and teachings are twisted leading to error and one's own destruction. This issue also highlights why Sola Scriptura is problematic. It is not the words or texts that are at issue, but rather the meaning and interpretation of the words and texts. The Bible is not self-interpreting as evidenced by the countless interpretations that exist within modern Christianity. To make it even worse Sproul attempts to acknowledge the different meanings we have and then he suffocates the Catholic meaning for the remainder of the lecture.
Sproul conflates Justification and Sanctification as one and the same thing. The difference in our theology is the question of what role the individual has in their own Sanctification process. Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and all faithful Christians prior to the Protest) have always understood that our path to Salvation is an ongoing process of Sanctification and not a one-time decision at a specific moment in time. The teaching of "Once Saved Always Saved" and the assurance of salvation is unbiblical and foreign to Christian belief prior to the Reformation. We were saved by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we are being saved by our acceptance and belief in Jesus by loving him and living our lives in accordance with his will to the best of our abilities… and when we sin and turn against him we must repent and seek his forgiveness for our disobedience, and we have a real hope and confidence that because we are living for and walking with God we will be saved.
Salvation is a past, present, and future event for each individual Christian. We must take up our cross daily and follow him. Enter by the narrow gate. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Catholics do NOT believe we are saved by our own effort. There is nothing we can do of our own that can earn us a place in Heaven nor make us worthy of Heaven. We are not saved by "Faith Alone" but rather we are saved by our faithfulness to God and must live this faithfulness daily. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and we are Sanctified by living our lives in cooperation with God's will. This is where repentance and confession of our sins (especially mortal sins) enter the conversation. When we intentionally turn from God and commit sin that is deadly, we must repent and seek to repair the damage that we have done to our relationship. This process is necessary to our sanctification and is our participation in the process of our salvation. We must live our lives in ongoing faithfulness.
When it comes to RC Sproul explaining Catholic beliefs I have found him to be one of the worst theologically, least charitable, and most offensive anti-catholic "pastors" there is.
ETA: our initial justification and our final justification are not one and the same thing.
I have finally learned not to click on Reformed/Calvinist theologians as they make me angry. And I want to respond. There is a reason only 1-3% of Christians call themselves Calvinists. And I love our Reformed/Calvinist posters on here. I do not understand their theology at all so it is probably me.
So I am going to stay away from guys like MacArthur, Sproul, (God rest their souls) and Piper. Much less spiritual stress.
This wasn't really very reformed centric. It was pretty generic Protestant. So maybe don't let the speaker color your view of what is said.
dermdoc said:Howdy, it is me! said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
Pretty much everything RC Sproul says in this lecture is wrong. His entire representation of Catholic teaching and doctrine is flawed and twisted in order to fit his own Reformed theology. I listened to the entire thing and I honestly don't think he said anything that would rightly be considered correct Catholic theology and doctrine, and if he did state something correctly he immediately followed it up by butchering the meaning and application of what was said in his so-called explanation of Catholic belief. Sproul takes the term "Justification" and repeatedly abuses and contorts it's use and meaning only allowing for the Reformed Protestant view and ignoring the Catholic view. Catholics believe in Initial Justification and Ongoing Justification (Sanctification).
This lecture highlights the difficulty in having fruitful dialog in these Catholic/Protestant discussions because we often say the same words but those words have completely different meanings and connotations depending on your theological upbringing, foundation, and understanding (ie "Traditions"). Words, texts, and teachings are twisted leading to error and one's own destruction. This issue also highlights why Sola Scriptura is problematic. It is not the words or texts that are at issue, but rather the meaning and interpretation of the words and texts. The Bible is not self-interpreting as evidenced by the countless interpretations that exist within modern Christianity. To make it even worse Sproul attempts to acknowledge the different meanings we have and then he suffocates the Catholic meaning for the remainder of the lecture.
Sproul conflates Justification and Sanctification as one and the same thing. The difference in our theology is the question of what role the individual has in their own Sanctification process. Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and all faithful Christians prior to the Protest) have always understood that our path to Salvation is an ongoing process of Sanctification and not a one-time decision at a specific moment in time. The teaching of "Once Saved Always Saved" and the assurance of salvation is unbiblical and foreign to Christian belief prior to the Reformation. We were saved by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we are being saved by our acceptance and belief in Jesus by loving him and living our lives in accordance with his will to the best of our abilities… and when we sin and turn against him we must repent and seek his forgiveness for our disobedience, and we have a real hope and confidence that because we are living for and walking with God we will be saved.
Salvation is a past, present, and future event for each individual Christian. We must take up our cross daily and follow him. Enter by the narrow gate. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Catholics do NOT believe we are saved by our own effort. There is nothing we can do of our own that can earn us a place in Heaven nor make us worthy of Heaven. We are not saved by "Faith Alone" but rather we are saved by our faithfulness to God and must live this faithfulness daily. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and we are Sanctified by living our lives in cooperation with God's will. This is where repentance and confession of our sins (especially mortal sins) enter the conversation. When we intentionally turn from God and commit sin that is deadly, we must repent and seek to repair the damage that we have done to our relationship. This process is necessary to our sanctification and is our participation in the process of our salvation. We must live our lives in ongoing faithfulness.
When it comes to RC Sproul explaining Catholic beliefs I have found him to be one of the worst theologically, least charitable, and most offensive anti-catholic "pastors" there is.
ETA: our initial justification and our final justification are not one and the same thing.
I have finally learned not to click on Reformed/Calvinist theologians as they make me angry. And I want to respond. There is a reason only 1-3% of Christians call themselves Calvinists. And I love our Reformed/Calvinist posters on here. I do not understand their theology at all so it is probably me.
So I am going to stay away from guys like MacArthur, Sproul, (God rest their souls) and Piper. Much less spiritual stress.
This wasn't really very reformed centric. It was pretty generic Protestant. So maybe don't let the speaker color your view of what is said.
I bet your idea of "generic" Protestant and mine are quite different. Which is fine. Most of the Calvinist/Reformed folks think they are firmly in the midst of generic Protestant theology. Yet only 13% of Protestants are Calvinist.
And my beef is with the theology. You are a wonderful poster.
Howdy, it is me! said:dermdoc said:Howdy, it is me! said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
Pretty much everything RC Sproul says in this lecture is wrong. His entire representation of Catholic teaching and doctrine is flawed and twisted in order to fit his own Reformed theology. I listened to the entire thing and I honestly don't think he said anything that would rightly be considered correct Catholic theology and doctrine, and if he did state something correctly he immediately followed it up by butchering the meaning and application of what was said in his so-called explanation of Catholic belief. Sproul takes the term "Justification" and repeatedly abuses and contorts it's use and meaning only allowing for the Reformed Protestant view and ignoring the Catholic view. Catholics believe in Initial Justification and Ongoing Justification (Sanctification).
This lecture highlights the difficulty in having fruitful dialog in these Catholic/Protestant discussions because we often say the same words but those words have completely different meanings and connotations depending on your theological upbringing, foundation, and understanding (ie "Traditions"). Words, texts, and teachings are twisted leading to error and one's own destruction. This issue also highlights why Sola Scriptura is problematic. It is not the words or texts that are at issue, but rather the meaning and interpretation of the words and texts. The Bible is not self-interpreting as evidenced by the countless interpretations that exist within modern Christianity. To make it even worse Sproul attempts to acknowledge the different meanings we have and then he suffocates the Catholic meaning for the remainder of the lecture.
Sproul conflates Justification and Sanctification as one and the same thing. The difference in our theology is the question of what role the individual has in their own Sanctification process. Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and all faithful Christians prior to the Protest) have always understood that our path to Salvation is an ongoing process of Sanctification and not a one-time decision at a specific moment in time. The teaching of "Once Saved Always Saved" and the assurance of salvation is unbiblical and foreign to Christian belief prior to the Reformation. We were saved by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we are being saved by our acceptance and belief in Jesus by loving him and living our lives in accordance with his will to the best of our abilities… and when we sin and turn against him we must repent and seek his forgiveness for our disobedience, and we have a real hope and confidence that because we are living for and walking with God we will be saved.
Salvation is a past, present, and future event for each individual Christian. We must take up our cross daily and follow him. Enter by the narrow gate. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Catholics do NOT believe we are saved by our own effort. There is nothing we can do of our own that can earn us a place in Heaven nor make us worthy of Heaven. We are not saved by "Faith Alone" but rather we are saved by our faithfulness to God and must live this faithfulness daily. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and we are Sanctified by living our lives in cooperation with God's will. This is where repentance and confession of our sins (especially mortal sins) enter the conversation. When we intentionally turn from God and commit sin that is deadly, we must repent and seek to repair the damage that we have done to our relationship. This process is necessary to our sanctification and is our participation in the process of our salvation. We must live our lives in ongoing faithfulness.
When it comes to RC Sproul explaining Catholic beliefs I have found him to be one of the worst theologically, least charitable, and most offensive anti-catholic "pastors" there is.
ETA: our initial justification and our final justification are not one and the same thing.
I have finally learned not to click on Reformed/Calvinist theologians as they make me angry. And I want to respond. There is a reason only 1-3% of Christians call themselves Calvinists. And I love our Reformed/Calvinist posters on here. I do not understand their theology at all so it is probably me.
So I am going to stay away from guys like MacArthur, Sproul, (God rest their souls) and Piper. Much less spiritual stress.
This wasn't really very reformed centric. It was pretty generic Protestant. So maybe don't let the speaker color your view of what is said.
I bet your idea of "generic" Protestant and mine are quite different. Which is fine. Most of the Calvinist/Reformed folks think they are firmly in the midst of generic Protestant theology. Yet only 13% of Protestants are Calvinist.
And my beef is with the theology. You are a wonderful poster.
You wouldn't say sola fide is a general Protestant belief?
dermdoc said:Howdy, it is me! said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
Pretty much everything RC Sproul says in this lecture is wrong. His entire representation of Catholic teaching and doctrine is flawed and twisted in order to fit his own Reformed theology. I listened to the entire thing and I honestly don't think he said anything that would rightly be considered correct Catholic theology and doctrine, and if he did state something correctly he immediately followed it up by butchering the meaning and application of what was said in his so-called explanation of Catholic belief. Sproul takes the term "Justification" and repeatedly abuses and contorts it's use and meaning only allowing for the Reformed Protestant view and ignoring the Catholic view. Catholics believe in Initial Justification and Ongoing Justification (Sanctification).
This lecture highlights the difficulty in having fruitful dialog in these Catholic/Protestant discussions because we often say the same words but those words have completely different meanings and connotations depending on your theological upbringing, foundation, and understanding (ie "Traditions"). Words, texts, and teachings are twisted leading to error and one's own destruction. This issue also highlights why Sola Scriptura is problematic. It is not the words or texts that are at issue, but rather the meaning and interpretation of the words and texts. The Bible is not self-interpreting as evidenced by the countless interpretations that exist within modern Christianity. To make it even worse Sproul attempts to acknowledge the different meanings we have and then he suffocates the Catholic meaning for the remainder of the lecture.
Sproul conflates Justification and Sanctification as one and the same thing. The difference in our theology is the question of what role the individual has in their own Sanctification process. Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and all faithful Christians prior to the Protest) have always understood that our path to Salvation is an ongoing process of Sanctification and not a one-time decision at a specific moment in time. The teaching of "Once Saved Always Saved" and the assurance of salvation is unbiblical and foreign to Christian belief prior to the Reformation. We were saved by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we are being saved by our acceptance and belief in Jesus by loving him and living our lives in accordance with his will to the best of our abilities… and when we sin and turn against him we must repent and seek his forgiveness for our disobedience, and we have a real hope and confidence that because we are living for and walking with God we will be saved.
Salvation is a past, present, and future event for each individual Christian. We must take up our cross daily and follow him. Enter by the narrow gate. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Catholics do NOT believe we are saved by our own effort. There is nothing we can do of our own that can earn us a place in Heaven nor make us worthy of Heaven. We are not saved by "Faith Alone" but rather we are saved by our faithfulness to God and must live this faithfulness daily. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and we are Sanctified by living our lives in cooperation with God's will. This is where repentance and confession of our sins (especially mortal sins) enter the conversation. When we intentionally turn from God and commit sin that is deadly, we must repent and seek to repair the damage that we have done to our relationship. This process is necessary to our sanctification and is our participation in the process of our salvation. We must live our lives in ongoing faithfulness.
When it comes to RC Sproul explaining Catholic beliefs I have found him to be one of the worst theologically, least charitable, and most offensive anti-catholic "pastors" there is.
ETA: our initial justification and our final justification are not one and the same thing.
I have finally learned not to click on Reformed/Calvinist theologians as they make me angry. And I want to respond. There is a reason only 1-3% of Christians call themselves Calvinists. And I love our Reformed/Calvinist posters on here. I do not understand their theology at all so it is probably me.
So I am going to stay away from guys like MacArthur, Sproul, (God rest their souls) and Piper. Much less spiritual stress.
This wasn't really very reformed centric. It was pretty generic Protestant. So maybe don't let the speaker color your view of what is said.
I bet your idea of "generic" Protestant and mine are quite different. Which is fine. Most of the Calvinist/Reformed folks think they are firmly in the midst of generic Protestant theology. Yet only 13% of Protestants are Calvinist.
And my beef is with the theology. You are a wonderful poster.
Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
Pretty much everything RC Sproul says in this lecture is wrong. His entire representation of Catholic teaching and doctrine is flawed and twisted in order to fit his own Reformed theology. I listened to the entire thing and I honestly don't think he said anything that would rightly be considered correct Catholic theology and doctrine, and if he did state something correctly he immediately followed it up by butchering the meaning and application of what was said in his so-called explanation of Catholic belief. Sproul takes the term "Justification" and repeatedly abuses and contorts it's use and meaning only allowing for the Reformed Protestant view and ignoring the Catholic view. Catholics believe in Initial Justification and Ongoing Justification (Sanctification).
This lecture highlights the difficulty in having fruitful dialog in these Catholic/Protestant discussions because we often say the same words but those words have completely different meanings and connotations depending on your theological upbringing, foundation, and understanding (ie "Traditions"). Words, texts, and teachings are twisted leading to error and one's own destruction. This issue also highlights why Sola Scriptura is problematic. It is not the words or texts that are at issue, but rather the meaning and interpretation of the words and texts. The Bible is not self-interpreting as evidenced by the countless interpretations that exist within modern Christianity. To make it even worse Sproul attempts to acknowledge the different meanings we have and then he suffocates the Catholic meaning for the remainder of the lecture.
Sproul conflates Justification and Sanctification as one and the same thing. The difference in our theology is the question of what role the individual has in their own Sanctification process. Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and all faithful Christians prior to the Protest) have always understood that our path to Salvation is an ongoing process of Sanctification and not a one-time decision at a specific moment in time. The teaching of "Once Saved Always Saved" and the assurance of salvation is unbiblical and foreign to Christian belief prior to the Reformation. We were saved by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we are being saved by our acceptance and belief in Jesus by loving him and living our lives in accordance with his will to the best of our abilities… and when we sin and turn against him we must repent and seek his forgiveness for our disobedience, and we have a real hope and confidence that because we are living for and walking with God we will be saved.
Salvation is a past, present, and future event for each individual Christian. We must take up our cross daily and follow him. Enter by the narrow gate. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Catholics do NOT believe we are saved by our own effort. There is nothing we can do of our own that can earn us a place in Heaven nor make us worthy of Heaven. We are not saved by "Faith Alone" but rather we are saved by our faithfulness to God and must live this faithfulness daily. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and we are Sanctified by living our lives in cooperation with God's will. This is where repentance and confession of our sins (especially mortal sins) enter the conversation. When we intentionally turn from God and commit sin that is deadly, we must repent and seek to repair the damage that we have done to our relationship. This process is necessary to our sanctification and is our participation in the process of our salvation. We must live our lives in ongoing faithfulness.
When it comes to RC Sproul explaining Catholic beliefs I have found him to be one of the worst theologically, least charitable, and most offensive anti-catholic "pastors" there is.
ETA: our initial justification and our final justification are not one and the same thing.
Howdy, it is me! said:dermdoc said:Howdy, it is me! said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
Pretty much everything RC Sproul says in this lecture is wrong. His entire representation of Catholic teaching and doctrine is flawed and twisted in order to fit his own Reformed theology. I listened to the entire thing and I honestly don't think he said anything that would rightly be considered correct Catholic theology and doctrine, and if he did state something correctly he immediately followed it up by butchering the meaning and application of what was said in his so-called explanation of Catholic belief. Sproul takes the term "Justification" and repeatedly abuses and contorts it's use and meaning only allowing for the Reformed Protestant view and ignoring the Catholic view. Catholics believe in Initial Justification and Ongoing Justification (Sanctification).
This lecture highlights the difficulty in having fruitful dialog in these Catholic/Protestant discussions because we often say the same words but those words have completely different meanings and connotations depending on your theological upbringing, foundation, and understanding (ie "Traditions"). Words, texts, and teachings are twisted leading to error and one's own destruction. This issue also highlights why Sola Scriptura is problematic. It is not the words or texts that are at issue, but rather the meaning and interpretation of the words and texts. The Bible is not self-interpreting as evidenced by the countless interpretations that exist within modern Christianity. To make it even worse Sproul attempts to acknowledge the different meanings we have and then he suffocates the Catholic meaning for the remainder of the lecture.
Sproul conflates Justification and Sanctification as one and the same thing. The difference in our theology is the question of what role the individual has in their own Sanctification process. Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and all faithful Christians prior to the Protest) have always understood that our path to Salvation is an ongoing process of Sanctification and not a one-time decision at a specific moment in time. The teaching of "Once Saved Always Saved" and the assurance of salvation is unbiblical and foreign to Christian belief prior to the Reformation. We were saved by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we are being saved by our acceptance and belief in Jesus by loving him and living our lives in accordance with his will to the best of our abilities… and when we sin and turn against him we must repent and seek his forgiveness for our disobedience, and we have a real hope and confidence that because we are living for and walking with God we will be saved.
Salvation is a past, present, and future event for each individual Christian. We must take up our cross daily and follow him. Enter by the narrow gate. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Catholics do NOT believe we are saved by our own effort. There is nothing we can do of our own that can earn us a place in Heaven nor make us worthy of Heaven. We are not saved by "Faith Alone" but rather we are saved by our faithfulness to God and must live this faithfulness daily. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and we are Sanctified by living our lives in cooperation with God's will. This is where repentance and confession of our sins (especially mortal sins) enter the conversation. When we intentionally turn from God and commit sin that is deadly, we must repent and seek to repair the damage that we have done to our relationship. This process is necessary to our sanctification and is our participation in the process of our salvation. We must live our lives in ongoing faithfulness.
When it comes to RC Sproul explaining Catholic beliefs I have found him to be one of the worst theologically, least charitable, and most offensive anti-catholic "pastors" there is.
ETA: our initial justification and our final justification are not one and the same thing.
I have finally learned not to click on Reformed/Calvinist theologians as they make me angry. And I want to respond. There is a reason only 1-3% of Christians call themselves Calvinists. And I love our Reformed/Calvinist posters on here. I do not understand their theology at all so it is probably me.
So I am going to stay away from guys like MacArthur, Sproul, (God rest their souls) and Piper. Much less spiritual stress.
This wasn't really very reformed centric. It was pretty generic Protestant. So maybe don't let the speaker color your view of what is said.
I bet your idea of "generic" Protestant and mine are quite different. Which is fine. Most of the Calvinist/Reformed folks think they are firmly in the midst of generic Protestant theology. Yet only 13% of Protestants are Calvinist.
And my beef is with the theology. You are a wonderful poster.
Besides, reformed or Protestant beliefs wasn't even the purpose of the post. I wanted a Catholic's take on what was said about Catholics.
10andBOUNCE said:
If those rules are played both ways, I accept.
Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
Pretty much everything RC Sproul says in this lecture is wrong. His entire representation of Catholic teaching and doctrine is flawed and twisted in order to fit his own Reformed theology. I listened to the entire thing and I honestly don't think he said anything that would rightly be considered correct Catholic theology and doctrine, and if he did state something correctly he immediately followed it up by butchering the meaning and application of what was said in his so-called explanation of Catholic belief. Sproul takes the term "Justification" and repeatedly abuses and contorts it's use and meaning only allowing for the Reformed Protestant view and ignoring the Catholic view. Catholics believe in Initial Justification and Ongoing Justification (Sanctification).
This lecture highlights the difficulty in having fruitful dialog in these Catholic/Protestant discussions because we often say the same words but those words have completely different meanings and connotations depending on your theological upbringing, foundation, and understanding (ie "Traditions"). Words, texts, and teachings are twisted leading to error and one's own destruction. This issue also highlights why Sola Scriptura is problematic. It is not the words or texts that are at issue, but rather the meaning and interpretation of the words and texts. The Bible is not self-interpreting as evidenced by the countless interpretations that exist within modern Christianity. To make it even worse Sproul attempts to acknowledge the different meanings we have and then he suffocates the Catholic meaning for the remainder of the lecture.
Sproul conflates Justification and Sanctification as one and the same thing. The difference in our theology is the question of what role the individual has in their own Sanctification process. Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and all faithful Christians prior to the Protest) have always understood that our path to Salvation is an ongoing process of Sanctification and not a one-time decision at a specific moment in time. The teaching of "Once Saved Always Saved" and the assurance of salvation is unbiblical and foreign to Christian belief prior to the Reformation. We were saved by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we are being saved by our acceptance and belief in Jesus by loving him and living our lives in accordance with his will to the best of our abilities… and when we sin and turn against him we must repent and seek his forgiveness for our disobedience, and we have a real hope and confidence that because we are living for and walking with God we will be saved.
Salvation is a past, present, and future event for each individual Christian. We must take up our cross daily and follow him. Enter by the narrow gate. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Catholics do NOT believe we are saved by our own effort. There is nothing we can do of our own that can earn us a place in Heaven nor make us worthy of Heaven. We are not saved by "Faith Alone" but rather we are saved by our faithfulness to God and must live this faithfulness daily. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and we are Sanctified by living our lives in cooperation with God's will. This is where repentance and confession of our sins (especially mortal sins) enter the conversation. When we intentionally turn from God and commit sin that is deadly, we must repent and seek to repair the damage that we have done to our relationship. This process is necessary to our sanctification and is our participation in the process of our salvation. We must live our lives in ongoing faithfulness.
When it comes to RC Sproul explaining Catholic beliefs I have found him to be one of the worst theologically, least charitable, and most offensive anti-catholic "pastors" there is.
ETA: our initial justification and our final justification are not one and the same thing.
dermdoc said:
If you guys were really interested in the Catholic view of justification, you might read some Catholic sources. Reformed theologians, in my opinion, are terribly uninformed and very biased. MacArthur was actually hostile.
Now I will shut up.
Faithful Ag said:
St. Thomas Aquinas…
10andBOUNCE said:
Would you be able to share an example that was said and why it was off base?
Pierow said:
"Catholics do NOT believe we are saved by our own effort. There is nothing we can do of our own that can earn us a place in Heaven nor make us worthy of Heaven."
"are being saved by our acceptance and belief in Jesus by loving him and living our lives in accordance with his will to the best of our abilities… and when we sin and turn against him we must repent and seek his forgiveness for our disobedience, and we have a real hope and confidence that because we are living for and walking with God we will be saved"
Which is it?
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV
And there are many, many more scriptures to back up my (and Sproul's) point. If you want to discuss James two, we can.
Adding anything to Jesus's work on the cross is antithetical to scripture. If you were to give someone a new Mercedes, and they then pull out a $20 bill to help, how would you feel?
Pierow said:
"However, we are also free to reject Christ and to turn away from God by choosing sin and separate ourselves from Him. Nothing I do can save me, but what I choose to do by rejecting God's love could damn me eternally."
So, John was wrong?
"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."
1 John 2:19 NASB1995
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you , depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Matt 7: 21-23"
It's pretty simple. There's only one work to be done, and even that is given to us by Christ.
"Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.""
John 6:28-29 NASB1995
He paid the price, he gets all the glory. I am elect. I don't know why, I have no idea why he would choose me. But he did. Before time ever began.
And it is forever. Nothing I can do, or say will make a difference in that outcome:
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.""
John 10:27-30 NASB1995
"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:38-39 NASB1995
Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:
"However, we are also free to reject Christ and to turn away from God by choosing sin and separate ourselves from Him. Nothing I do can save me, but what I choose to do by rejecting God's love could damn me eternally."
So, John was wrong?
"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."
1 John 2:19 NASB1995
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you , depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Matt 7: 21-23"
It's pretty simple. There's only one work to be done, and even that is given to us by Christ.
"Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.""
John 6:28-29 NASB1995
He paid the price, he gets all the glory. I am elect. I don't know why, I have no idea why he would choose me. But he did. Before time ever began.
And it is forever. Nothing I can do, or say will make a difference in that outcome:
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.""
John 10:27-30 NASB1995
"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:38-39 NASB1995
Again, most of Protestantism is nothing more than messianic Judaism, with them trying to explain why their membership in the 144,000 means they don't have to do anything.
dermdoc said:
Do you believe God pre ordains people to ECT hell? That he created? I mean, if they are not of the elect they are hosed, correct?
Vox Clamantis said:
The fact that there are a sizable group of people who believe that God created Adam and Eve and forced them into disobeying him, thereby flooding the world with sin, contrary to his original plan and necessitating that his Son, die for a random sample who have some sort of get out of jail free car to go to heaven, is a caricature of the Christian faith.
I can't imagine how small the Calvinist Christ is, who would create everyone with an icon of himself in their soul, knowing them before they were formed in the womb, have the Holy Spirit sent down upon them so that they might make believers of all nations……for nothing. What sort of Good shepherd watches a sheep go away and says "I actually always knew he was supposed to go away" ?
It's looney tunes
Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:
The fact that there are a sizable group of people who believe that God created Adam and Eve and forced them into disobeying him, thereby flooding the world with sin, contrary to his original plan and necessitating that his Son, die for a random sample who have some sort of get out of jail free car to go to heaven, is a caricature of the Christian faith.
I can't imagine how small the Calvinist Christ is, who would create everyone with an icon of himself in their soul, knowing them before they were formed in the womb, have the Holy Spirit sent down upon them so that they might make believers of all nations……for nothing. What sort of Good shepherd watches a sheep go away and says "I actually always knew he was supposed to go away" ?
It's looney tunes
I don't want to worship a God who I can completely understand or know exactly how he does things. But I will pay attention to him in what he says. And he says we are predestined. If you don't like that, that's on you.
Vox Clamantis said:
The fact that there are a sizable group of people who believe that God created Adam and Eve and forced them into disobeying him, thereby flooding the world with sin, contrary to his original plan and necessitating that his Son, die for a random sample who have some sort of get out of jail free car to go to heaven, is a caricature of the Christian faith.
I can't imagine how small the Calvinist Christ is, who would create everyone with an icon of himself in their soul, knowing them before they were formed in the womb, have the Holy Spirit sent down upon them so that they might make believers of all nations……for nothing. What sort of Good shepherd watches a sheep go away and says "I actually always knew he was supposed to go away" ?
It's looney tunes
10andBOUNCE said:Vox Clamantis said:
The fact that there are a sizable group of people who believe that God created Adam and Eve and forced them into disobeying him, thereby flooding the world with sin, contrary to his original plan and necessitating that his Son, die for a random sample who have some sort of get out of jail free car to go to heaven, is a caricature of the Christian faith.
I can't imagine how small the Calvinist Christ is, who would create everyone with an icon of himself in their soul, knowing them before they were formed in the womb, have the Holy Spirit sent down upon them so that they might make believers of all nations……for nothing. What sort of Good shepherd watches a sheep go away and says "I actually always knew he was supposed to go away" ?
It's looney tunes
I am a Calvinist and neither I nor anyone I know believes your looney tune assumptions on Adam and Eve being forced to disobey. Furthermore I have never heard anyone teach this from a reformed pulpit, and I really haven't even heard of the idea until you brought it up.
The Christ I know is the promised Messiah that gave His life for those that the Father gave (John 6), and He will preserve them unto the end (John 10).
