Replies

It would be unfair of me to characterize the Anglicans because I simply do not know enough about their belief system.

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

FK: "It would be unfair of me to characterize the Anglicans because I simply do not know enough about their belief system."

Really? Then how can you possibly make the claim that all Protestants are as one on major doctrinal issues???

I have NEVER made such a claim because it cannot possibly be true. I HAVE said things like I think that Bible Believing Protestants agree to a very great degree on major doctrine, and I hold to that. I don't know enough about Anglicanism today to know if they are Bible believing Protestants.

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.

There are a lot more Bible believing Protestants in the world than there are Orthodoxers, so if you want to play a numbers game then you have to dis a faith much closer to your own. I don't happen to think the numbers game really counts for much.

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.

Well I appreciate that. This is always good to hear.

In the end, I do not see how two Protestants can resolve a disagreement, as there is no authority that is living.

No doubt it is difficult. :) I'm sure you've seen some of the Bible believing classic Reformer vs. Bible believing Arminian Reformer threads. We just beat each other about the face and head with scripture all night long. LOL! It can be very entertaining.

In other words, there is a particular way of reading the Bible that is acceptable, and another that deviates from that.

I am fine with that, AND, as I'm sure you will agree, this does not necessarily define Christians from non-Christians. In some cases, if it is bad enough, then yes it does, but not in all cases. For example, my guess would be that it is permissible for a Catholic to consider Mormonism a Christian faith, and that many Catholics fall on both sides of the issue. True? FWIW, I'm well on record that my view is that Mormonism is not a Christian faith.

I don't think you want to revisit 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!!!

Yeah, I don't think I'm up to getting into this again so soon, but I have to say one thing. :) My discussion of "destroyed" had nothing to do with lower rewards in Heaven, it was only about earthly punishment vs. spiritual death (loss of salvation).

"Healing" and "saved" can refer to both the physical and spiritual. Or, they can refer to one but not the other. For example, with the adulterous woman it is clear to me that Jesus healed spiritually, but not physically. However, when the servant of the centurion was healed we are given no indication at all that the servant was therefore healed spiritually. Likewise, "saved" means simply physically from danger, as is replete in the OT. However, in the NT it more often means only spiritually, through belief. Therefore, sometimes they cover both, but no where close to always.

Positional salvation is only from a POV. Experience is different as it happens to the elect. There is nothing contrived. Do you deny that God has a different POV from us and that it is expressed in the Bible?

Thus, salvation is available to anyone who avails themselves to accepting the promptings of the Spirit, who rains on the good and the evil.

And I would say that salvation is had by anyone who freely chooses to accept Christ. For lurkers: of course this means that Joe and I see this issue COMPLETELY differently! :) I suppose this is what MD has been talking about for several posts. :)

[Re: Rom. 6:23:] It doesn't say EVERY SIN earns death. It just says sin in general. Thus, a person living a life of sin earns death.

It doesn't say sin in general, it just says sin. The context says it all:

Rom 6:20-23 : 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is heavy duty stuff. :) In 21 we see that ALL sin in which they are ashamed of leads to death. Is there any sin in which we need not feel ashamed? This confirms the meaning in 23.

I am not sure I understand your reasoning about the early Fathers hiding the faith!

It's just my old hobby-horse about the faith being hidden if it is only revealed to a select few men directly. I.e., it is not revealed to the common man from God, but through a fallible filter.

By "here" I hope you don't mean this thread, since I have invested a lot of time in reading all the posts. :) I can't speak for every FR Reformer, but the vast majority of them that I am aware of would say that in the Bible Jesus would trump Paul, but that is never necessary because they never disagree. :) Also, that as an author or authority, Paul is no higher nor lower than any other author.

Paul happens to be one guy who deals with a lot of "meat", so we DO focus on him sometimes. But that is not to belittle or say that any other is a "lesser" authority. Paul is NOT "more correct" because he's Paul.

I focus of John sometimes more than the synoptics, but that takes nothing away from them either. Again, it's where I perceive to be the most "meat", or the most difficult to understand. Maybe that's a better way to look at it. I focus more because it's just plain harder. :)

I don't consider faith and works separate! How could you say such a thing? Have our classes been for naught?!

No, our classes have not been for naught! I have retained much of what you have personally taught me and I am forever grateful. I'm not perfect though. :) The reason I see them as separate in Catholicism is that once a person decides to accept faith, then he must then make further, independent decisions to do works. My understanding is that most who have faith decide to do them, but that some, who have what you would call real faith, decide not to do them, and they lose their salvations. That defines a separation to me. My side would say that every single person with true faith WILL do works, and NONE can be lost. That's why I claim to say that they are inseparable.