Please, FK. Not sure where you live and whom you associate with, but clearly, you are not very familiar with alternate Protestant theologies. For example: Is baptism salvific or not. I am having an ongoing dialogue with someone who has initiated that topic elsewhere. Yep. There are some Protestants who say "No, it is an ordinance" and others who say "Yes, baptism is a sacrament and brings the Holy Spirit, making us children of God". The "certainty" of private interpretation...
You are right that I don't know much about non-Bible-believing faiths that call themselves "Protestant", however, I think I did clearly qualify my statement. ...... NO Bible-believing Protestant could possibly say that baptism is salvific. None of us believe that.
In fact, on this very thread I am currently having a wonderful discussion with my Reformed brothers and sisters about a very related subject, paedobaptism. I happen to be in the minority camp of following a believer's baptism. However, none of us believe that baptism is salvific. In fact, I was SO SURE of the core unity I share with my fellow Reformers that I was willing to start the disagreement in public. I did it because I genuinely want to understand the majority view, and perhaps others may learn from the exchange also. Because of the core beliefs that bind us Reformers together, there was never any risk of breaking with the faith. And as a result, I have learned much.
FK: [On 1 Cor. 3:16-17:] We must note our difference on how "temple" is used in this passage. The Bible does use it differently. In some cases it refers to a building, in others it refers to the physical body of a single believer. Here, you appear to take it as the spiritual being of a single believer, and I take it to mean the body of believers in a local church. I can see how it's possible to take verse 16 in the singular and I hope you see how it's possible to take it in the plural.
So Paul is condemning the entire community because there is dissent being caused by some of the community???
Where does this come from? Verse 17 says plainly "IF ANYONE" (KJV - "any man"), not "if any community". The condemnation in 17 is on the one, not the many. If you look at my quote I said that 16 was plural, not 17 (except for the last "you").
We aren't speaking of physical death here, but spiritual death.
Not in Catholicism we're not, because there is no such thing as spiritual death for you until one dips a toe into the lava. :) In Catholicism being spiritually dead is like being three days behind on the electric bill. No big deal, just pay the $10 late fee (do your penance) and you are suddenly NOT spiritually dead. My point is that in Catholicism, the term has no real meaning. I am saying that on the one hand you say that "destroy" is the same as "death", but OTOH, there is nothing permanent about "death". Therefore, I say, there is nothing permanent about "destroy", by your own usage of the terms. That is the cake you are trying to eat. :)
IF Paul is so crystal clear on sola fide, as you claim, where is this recognition among the first Christians?
The vast majority of the first ante-Apostolic Christians did not have the means or clout to have their beliefs preserved in perpetuity. No one can know what they were.
Why did it take 1500 years for Christians to recognize the "clear" writings that Paul preached sola fide?
It is debatable whether some of the early Church Fathers believed in some form of Sola Fide, but I won't even go there. The Reformation Fathers gave it a name, and perhaps it was because they were the first to not have a vested interest against it. For any Roman Catholic of the time in power and authority (who wished to remain so) to support Sola Fide would be like a modern day Democrat supporting tax-cuts, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, or allowing the mention of God in a public school. Bottom line - political suicide. That is, until a small group of men came along, led by the Spirit, who were willing to personally risk their lives for the truth the Spirit had given them.
Is James AND Paul the Word of God? They must agree, correct? How can James agree with YOUR interpretation of Paul? James 2 specifically says we are NOT saved by faith alone. And Catholics don't follow the Word of God??? Oy.
James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God. While they are perfectly consistent, they approach faith from two different angles. Paul talks about gaining salvation by faith without works. James talks about works being an evidence of a true faith. Here is an excerpt from a website illustrating the comparison, including A Chart Comparing and Contrasting the Teaching of Paul and James :
Both writers mention “works.” Paul teaches that works are unnecessary but James teaches that works are essential. This apparent contradiction is solved when we realize that Paul was speaking of those good works that an unsaved person tries to do in order to win God’s favor or work his way to heaven. James on the other hand was referring to those good works that a saved person performs which gives evidence of a real, living, saving faith.
James does not teach that good works are necessary in order to gain salvation and Paul never teaches that good works are unnecessary after a person is saved. On the contrary, Paul agreed with James that for the person justified by faith, good works are essential (Phil. 2:12-13; Titus 3:5-8; Eph. 2:8-10). Likewise, James agreed with Paul that the only condition for inheriting the kingdom was faith and faith alone (see James 2:5 and also Acts 15 where at the Jerusalem Council James never expressed disagreement over Paul’s teaching that salvation was by faith and not by the works of the law).
James and Paul only contradict when a works-based salvation model is thrust upon James, against his free will at that. :)
...and thus, faith without works is not salvific. Very good. Faith alone does not save. You have said it right there.
James and Paul both recognize that a faith that doesn't show works is no faith at all, yes. This does not at all mean that works are a separate and distinct component of salvation. Works are an included component of true faith.
What do you base that upon? I hadn't realized that I had discussed my private devotional lifestyle to you. The Bible says all generations shall call Mary blessed. They shall venerate her. I was wondering how you do that. Do you emulate her? Or is your idea of considering her as blessed include using demeaning language about her?
I said before that I honor Mary, but that I am not devoted to her, but only to God. You said that was impossible because to honor MEANS to have devotion for. Then I said you must not honor Abraham, or Moses, or David, et al. because I know the Church doesn't venerate them anywhere near the way you do Mary. So, that's where we are. :)
Where does the Bible say that the world will venerate Mary in the way that you do? I'm not familiar with those verses. The Bible (Mary) says that all will call her blessed, a true fact. She was blessed, and so were all the Biblical greats, and so are we today. If you believe that Mary herself was trying to elevate herself to the place she holds in your Church today, then you erase all humility from her character. I don't think she would want that. I do believe that Mary was humble, and I try to emulate that. But this does not include foretelling that people all over the world will bow down to statues of me. :)
Is 1 Peter 3:21 Bible?
Every Protestant believes that Baptism is merely an ordinance? Perhaps you should poll the Anglicans. My point is not to argue specific theology, but to point out that you are incorrect to state that Protestants share a common faith at the specific level on key issues. One of the problems with defending the faith vs. Protestants, from my point of view, is that I don't know where "john doe" stands regarding "theology x" until he says something. Everyone can learn what Catholicism teaches by reading the Catechism. It is quite simple to find it. As to Protestants, where is this source that I can go to that explains what you believe, all of you, on a variety of subjects, because it would make my job a lot easier rather than guessing what I am up against beforehand.
Where does this come from? Verse 17 says plainly "IF ANYONE" (KJV - "any man"), not "if any community". The condemnation in 17 is on the one, not the many. If you look at my quote I said that 16 was plural, not 17 (except for the last "you").
LOL! You are attacking your own position by changing your story. Of course Paul is not condemning the entire community. However, that was your stance several posts ago, which I then responded sarcastically:
So Paul is condemning the entire community because there is dissent being caused by some of the community???
You are clearly befuddled on these verses, aren't you? Don't feel too badly, most Protestant commentaries do not have an adequate response to them.
Not in Catholicism we're not, because there is no such thing as spiritual death for you until one dips a toe into the lava. :) In Catholicism being spiritually dead is like being three days behind on the electric bill. No big deal, just pay the $10 late fee (do your penance) and you are suddenly NOT spiritually dead.
Doing your penance doesn't forgive sins. Jeez, if you are going to make fun of us, at least get it right...I tire of the strawman you have erected.
I presume you read the story of the Prodigal Son. Are you saying that God only forgives sins one time? Even you must admit that a person can become so enamoured in sin that they are considered spiritually dead and not capable of repenting without some miraculous intervention by God. I think we need to discuss what "spritually dead" is, since you have a mistaken concept. Every sin doesn't cause spiritual death - as John's epistle clearly states.
The vast majority of the first ante-Apostolic Christians did not have the means or clout to have their beliefs preserved in perpetuity. No one can know what they were.
What we have is enough to tell us that Catholicism is a continuation of Biblical Christianity. Take the Fathers as historical records, not God-inspired works, and you will find out that the information we have leads us to believe that the Catholic faith that we have today is the full-grown mustard seed of Peter's day. You are placing your hope on the absence of records. That is not how historians work. We look at what is available and (presuming that the source is not an avid liar proven by other sources) accept the historical document as truthfully relating events.
If historians worked the way you are imagining, we would "KNOW" nothing about the past. "Maybe the South won the US Civil War and there was a big conspiracy to cover it up"... No, if you apply that logic to the roots of Christianity, then you would have to apply it elsewhere to be consistent. You are special pleading.
It is debatable whether some of the early Church Fathers believed in some form of Sola Fide, but I won't even go there.
Wise decision. I have not seen one sentence that stated such a fantasy. Either the first Christians were hopelessly distorting the Gospel just given to them or the Gospel has been preserved intact and the Reformation folks are wrong. If God preserves His People from error (the Church IS the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH), then where does that lead the protester?
For any Roman Catholic of the time in power and authority (who wished to remain so) to support Sola Fide would be like a modern day Democrat supporting tax-cuts, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, or allowing the mention of God in a public school. Bottom line - political suicide.
That's just plain nonsense, FK. Why would a Catholic of 300 AD worry about writing something that might be used by the reformers 1200 years later? Those men were theologians writing to the people of their time, expressing their beliefs of God, Christ, and the plan of salvation. Politically correct? You should read some of the stuff the Fathers wrote. Trust me, they weren't afraid to express their opinions as they wrestled with the issues of the times, such as Jesus' connection with the Father. The debate swings back and forth as the Church looks inward at its beliefs, trying to put them down and define them more narrowly. You think they did that in such a way so that the Pope didn't haul them off to the dungeon because of some reformer might pick up on it in 1520??? Please.
James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God.
Some of the "reformers" didn't think so. It is a sign of a heretic to eliminate parts of the Word of God. Whether they are Gnostics or Protestants, the effect is the same: twist the Scriptures to try to get it to say what you want. And if that doesn't work, cut out those offending parts, like 2 Maccabees or Sirach, or James. That is exactly what Luther did or try to do He even added the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 because he wasn't satisfied with the Scriptures and thought that he might help God explain things better.... That is the type of person you base your interpretation of the Bible upon.
James and Paul only contradict when a works-based salvation model is thrust upon James, against his free will at that. :)
Who said anything about works salvation in James? It says that faith alone doesn't save! Consider Sola Fide dead and buried. It doesn't say that works alone saves. See, the problem is that you have to have it "either/or". Too bad. It prevents you from seeing the wonderful integrity of the entire Bible without having to build a "canon within a canon" by always falling back on Paul, Paul, Paul...
James and Paul both recognize that a faith that doesn't show works is no faith at all, yes. This does not at all mean that works are a separate and distinct component of salvation. Works are an included component of true faith.
Which means that faith is not alone. Spell out the consequences of what you have said. There is hope for you yet...
Then I said you must not honor Abraham, or Moses, or David, et al. because I know the Church doesn't venerate them anywhere near the way you do Mary.
No, I think you said that we don't honor the OT men at all. You never said anything about honoring them "anywhere near Mary".
Where does the Bible say that the world will venerate Mary in the way that you do?
Nowhere. But I doubt the Bible would foretell my personal devotions, anyway.
Regards