Every Protestant believes that Baptism is merely an ordinance? Perhaps you should poll the Anglicans.
You know how I use the term "Bible-believing Protestant". It would be unfair of me to characterize the Anglicans because I simply do not know enough about their belief system. What I DO know is that among all of the Protestants with whom you and I regularly have exchanges, I am aware of NONE who believe that baptism is salvific.
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.
This is well stated. My first advice would be to get away from thinking that on the one hand there is Catholicism and on the other is Protestantism. Catholicism is a self-contained monolithic faith. Protestantism is nothing like that. IMHO, the true Protestantism is found in Reformed theology, which is spread across different denominations. You know for a fact that of the many Reformers you normally deal with, the theologies are nearly identical.
And, I can say the following with no reservation at all: Since I started posting here I have had the pleasure of conversation with many Roman Catholics. Overall, I would say that the theology that I have been showed has been very consistent. And, I would say that it has been no more consistent than that of the Reformers I have also encountered across these threads. IOW, in the universe of people who know what they're talking about, there is plenty of consistency ...... on all sides.
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:
I thought you were being literal and I have no idea why you think I have changed my stance. While it's not impossible, with my training, I don't usually attack my own position. :)
I presume you read the story of the Prodigal Son. Are you saying that God only forgives sins one time?
For salvational purposes "Yes", and for healing purposes "No". For salvation the blood of Christ served to forgive us believers of all sins ever committed. We are further told in the Bible that we are to confess our sins to one another, as well as to God of course. "Confession is good for the soul", etc. This is a healing mechanism but has nothing to do with salvation.
Even you must admit that a person can become so enamored in sin that they are considered spiritually dead and not capable of repenting without some miraculous intervention by God.
Well, it depends on who is doing the considering! :) Certainly, those with true faith will falter, sometimes for years. No question. However, my faith's view of scriptures is that God promises that He will bring such a person back into the fold before it is too late. That is what POTS is all about.
I think we need to discuss what "spiritually dead" is, since you have a mistaken concept. Every sin doesn't cause spiritual death - as John's epistle clearly states.
If you're talking mortal vs. venial then I think I get that. If there is more then I am happy to listen. However, the Bible is clear that every real sin DOES result in spiritual death. "Rom 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." This doesn't include any qualifications on different levels of sin.
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?
The protester does not protest God's Church, he protests the distortion of it by others. If the early Fathers were correct in their interpretation, then Christianity is NOT a revealed faith, but a hidden faith that only a few are able to uncover. I just can't accept that.
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.
Oh, I don't accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, I think they believed what they wrote. What I'm saying is that the reason we know what they wrote is that the ones who held the power agreed. Aside from Augustine, and maybe a few others on specific issues, I don't think that Reformed thinking was preserved to the level it probably enjoyed. IOW, I don't think the first Reformers were really the first Reformers. Luther and friends were not inventing something new. They were just the first to organize the theology.
FK: "James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God."
Some of the "reformers" didn't think so.
Well, I won't ask you to name names, but I can't think of a single Reformer around these parts who would disagree with what I said. But if you are talking about Luther, then you are right that he was wrong to try to get rid of James. Thank God he failed, or I would surely be the lesser for it. I can forgive him. :)
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...
There is no problem. Any salvation model that includes works as a separate element is a works-based model. I know that you do not dismiss the importance of faith, you just concentrate on works. I get it. :)
Sola Fide will only pass away when the Bible does. They are linked forever. I don't understand how on the one hand you say to consider the whole Bible (that's good), but on the other hand you say to ignore Paul when he disagrees with Roman Catholic theology. Obviously, Paul is a major part of the whole Bible.
FK: "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 it is a semantic argument over what "faith" means. I don't see works as a separate element in salvation. I don't believe that some with faith do works and others with faith do not. I believe that is impossible. Works are a visible manifestation of faith, an evidence of it. My use of Sola Fide includes this.
Really? Then how can you possibly make the claim that all Protestants are as one on major doctrinal issues???
Catholicism is a self-contained monolithic faith. Protestantism is nothing like that.
Which is odd that your faith is NOT more shared. If the Bible was so clear on its own (which I will argue until in the grave that it is not!), we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, Luther correctly realized too late that he had opened a Pandora's box, stating that there were as many beliefs in Protestantism as there were heads. (that is a paraphrase). The Bible says the Church has one faith taught to God's people. My opinion, and the Church, is to say that it teaches the fullness, and men such as yourself are united to this Church based on your oneness to her in practice and doctrine.
In the end, I do not see how two Protestants can resolve a disagreement, as there is no authority that is living. Jesus told His apostles that we are to take unresolvable problems to the Church. Given that they have the power to bind and loosen, it goes without saying that this would include interpretation of the Bible.
I am reading a very interesting book on Irenaeus that argues this very concept: that the Gnostics, who had the same Scriptures, were wrong because they were not following the Rule of Faith. In other words, there is a particular way of reading the Bible that is acceptable, and another that deviates from that. This idea must have been common even during the latter parts of the NT, as we note that John and Paul had problems with false teachers. They must have used similar lines of logic to distinguish their teachings from false teachings.
IOW, in the universe of people who know what they're talking about, there is plenty of consistency ...... on all sides.
Yes, that is true, I have found Reformed theologians here to be consistent - As you can imagine, the Gnostics were ALSO consistent in most of their beliefs! I do not know how this can be resolved by the Bible, because both camps are honestly looking to the Bible to bring out their view. In the end, FK, it comes down to "who is the Spirit leading" - the individual or the community.
While it's not impossible, with my training, I don't usually attack my own position. :)
I don't think you want to revist 1 Cor 3:12-17! Suffice to say that it causes serious problems with the "salvation by faith ALONE" theory. If you want, you can try again after you collect your thoughts. However, recall that being "destroyed" is NOT a term that defines "lower rewards" in heaven!!!
For salvational purposes "Yes", and for healing purposes "No".
Oi! What exactly is the difference between healing and being saved??? They are used interchangeably in the Gospel! When Jesus cures someone, He says "you are saved" and other times "you are healed"! Would you like some verses to prove that? This sounds like another one of those contrived differences, like positional salvation!
For salvation the blood of Christ served to forgive us believers of all sins ever committed.
Christ died for ALL men. Again, you are consistently avoiding huge chunks of Scriptures. Christ didn't die just for the just, because, as Romans 5 states, we were in sin first before His death. Thus, salvation is available to anyone who avails themselves to accepting the promptings of the Spirit, who rains on the good and the evil.
However, the Bible is clear that every real sin DOES result in spiritual death. "Rom 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." This doesn't include any qualifications on different levels of sin.
I believe that verse is speaking more generally to say that man can only earn death, while life is a gift from Christ. We would agree on that. As to the level of sin required for spiritual death to occur, John tells us there are some sins that do not kill. Some do. I don't think this verse is making a statement in that direction. It doesn't say EVERY SIN earns death. It just says sin in general. Thus, a person living a life of sin earns death.
The protester does not protest God's Church, he protests the distortion of it by others. If the early Fathers were correct in their interpretation, then Christianity is NOT a revealed faith, but a hidden faith that only a few are able to uncover. I just can't accept that.
I am not sure I understand your reasoning about the early Fathers hiding the faith! They write about it all the time. As a matter of fact, Irenaeus makes that very same statement you make towards the Gnostics, stating that the teachings of the Church are NOT hidden and are open to all, while the Gnostics relied on hidden knowledge to become saved. Church history inevitably leads one to Catholicism, because people see the continuity between the Church of 100 AD and today.
What I'm saying is that the reason we know what they wrote is that the ones who held the power agreed.
Nice try. We also have hostile witnesses. We have the Roman writings, the Jewish writings, and we have the Gnostic library, all writing against the Church that we call "Catholic". Your premise fails.
FK: "James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God." Some of the "reformers" didn't think so.
A gentleman here seemed pretty intent on discussing the "clear" writings of Paul vs. James, who "doesn't discuss eternal salvation" with me. Also, I have run into a number of people who consider Paul a canon above the canon. They would rather look to Paul (who Peter calls "hard to understand") than Jesus about salvation!!!
There is no problem. Any salvation model that includes works as a separate element is a works-based model. I know that you do not dismiss the importance of faith, you just concentrate on works. I get it. :)
I don't consider faith and works separate! How could you say such a thing? Have our classes been for naught?!
Well, I got to go. Daughter needs the computer...
Regards