SS type churches
I am not familiar with the acronym in this context, what does it mean?
Sola (not “solo”) Scriptura, or the supremacy of Scripture, in which the Scriptures are the only supreme and assuredly infallible objective authority on earth for spiritual truth and morals, normally formally sufficient to save, and materially providing for the church and its magisterium, but it and all other mortals and teachings are subject to the Scripture. This is set in contrast to “Sola Ecclesia,” in which the Roman Catholic assuredly infallible magisterium (being infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallible defined criteria) is the only supreme, assuredly infallible authority on earth.
while it has its share, Catholicism has its equivalent
The difference is that there are not two Catholicisms. There are liberal Catholics.
...and the majority in the West.
On the other hand, the Protestant communities that would categorically separate faith from works, exist and they are full-fledged self-sustained communities, independent from those who, like yourself, de facto take a Catholic position on inseparability of faith and good works.
And Roman Catholics show more concern over a liberal Catholic who becomes a conservative born again evangelical than when he was a nominal Catholic. But as explained, even more recently, and evidenced, the overall historic evangelical Protestant position has been that faith and works are separate as far as to what actually procures justification, as this is what Scripture most clearly teaches when it precisely deals with how one is justified, that faith is counted for righteousness, “not by works of righteousness which we have done,” being “not according to our works”, “not of works,” that “God imputeth righteousness without works,” but is granted “to him that worketh not.” (Rm. 4: 5,6; 9:11; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9) Etc.
And i also explained that Protestantism also has historically affirmed the inseparability of faith and good works as concerns what kind of faith is salvific, and this need not be artistry, but making eternal life something that is merited, though it is also a gift, is.
As for there being a lack of uniformity concerning this, this is true. The biggest division in Protestantism is between dead liberal institutionalized churches, with more perfunctory professions than manifest conversions, versus those who not only officially hold to SS but to its overall literal, historic interpretation and preaching to convert souls, which evangelicalism is marked by. Within the latter you have two major divides, that being regarding predestination with its typical position on security and usually eschatology, and the perpetuity of “sign gifts,” but both preach that man is must be converted by faith in Christ, not by merits of works, while those that hold that saving faith need not be of a character that is marked by obedience have always been in the minority, as are those who deviate from core essentials such as the Nicene Creed articulates.
However, what do divisions prove as regards the best basis for Biblical unity? What Roman Catholics attempt to do is attack SS because it results in divisions, and instead they promote implicit trust in the Roman Catholic magisterium, by which they claim unity. However, this was not how Biblical unity was realized, as stated in a previous post. And yet comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not realized, but SS can result in a transdenominational unity that is manifestly effectual to the salvation of souls. As for the unity of Rome, its means is the same as established cults, that being a supreme authority over Scripture, and both owe their allegiance to such for their unScriptural aberrant doctrines, which those who hold to SS typically contend against, even as they strongly contend for the Scriptural truths we both agree on.
The Roman Catholic may argue that cults such as the LDS do not have the historical evidence for their claim, but the efficacy of this argument depends upon the interpretation that formal historical descent is a basis for authenticity, which it is not (and never was totally). And while Rome may argue otherwise, she cannot appeal to the Scriptures as the supreme judge on the matter, as she claims to be their latter, and in reality her claim to be correct is based upon her claim that she is correct, when speaking in accordance with her criteria for being infallibly correct.
And the faithful preacher exhorts works in the same order as the Bible doctrinally does, after establishing the means to salvation and the state the believer has as a result, and with the motive to glorify God.
See, that part is still not biblical. There are some passages where sanctification is given in a certain order, and the person obtains the gift of faith first, then is driven to good works, then his faith matures, and "makes sure his calling and election (2 Peter 1:2-10 comes to mind, or Philippians 2:12-13). That would be Catholic teaching. But this sharp distinction that one is saved on faith alone and then proceeds in good works, not to "make sure" the salvation, but solely in order to glorify God, -- is not in any scripture that I am familiar with
You wrongly assume i do not hold that the believer must continue in faith. The distinction you make is that the believer goes in faith in order to glorify God, assuming this is in conflict with making his calling and election sure, which it is not. While believers are to go “hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end,” (Heb. 3:6) and go on to perfection, (Heb. 6:1) believers are to do all things to the glory of God, (1Cor. 10:31) and growing in perfection also means coming to the place where the motive for the believer is not fear of punishment, but only out of love for God. (1Jn. 4:17-19) And paradoxically, while 2Pt. 1:1-10 teaches how to be “make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (v. 10) and 1Jn 5:13 teaches provides for knowing one posses eternal life, yet Rome disallows being confident you are saved, “that he is among the number of the predestined,” — “except by special revelation,” (no inconsistency there). — Trent, Chapter XII: “Rash presumption of predestination is to be avoided.”
At best you are inferring that from passages that also allow for Catholic interpretation, whereby salvation, justification and sanctification are aspects of a single process rather than consecutive stages
You confuse positionable sanctification with practical sanctification, but both are Biblical, as is that that former is to lead the latter. However, Rome is the one who is unScriptural here, as it has the convert being made actually righteous in heart by “infused righteousness” via baptism (sprinkling) — usually as infants via proxy faith by which they are born again (so there should be a manifest change in Catholic kids compared with evangelical one) — and so he is formally justified by his own personal righteousness and holiness (causa formalis). This is in contrast to righteousness being imputed to him, that of faith being counted for righteousness, with the believer thus being positionally translated into the kingdom of God, (Col. 1:13) and made to sit together in the Heavenly, (Eph. 2:6) being risen with Christ, (Col. 3:1) even though the man's own holiness still comes short of the glory of God.
But as he is positionally righteousness, thus he is exhorted and enabled to live it out: “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:” (Phil. 3:21) “ If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” (Gal. 5:25)
My objection is to the to "onlys". Indeed the Scripture is inerrant as written by its human authors. But from nowhere does it follow that it is the only inerrant thing in matters of faith and morals. It is also true that the Magisterium of the Church is "subject" to the scripture in the sense that it may not teach contrary to it. However, the scripture itself poses no objection to the authority of the Church, -- in fact it asserts it; the common sense tells us that Sola Scriptura could not have been the rule of faith at least in the Early Church where the relevant to the Christian scripture was simply not written nor that that was in due course written, canonized. The truth is that the Hoyl Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time. The objections that the Magisterium being an activity of fallible men may, in principle, one day go into apostasy are of the same category as other speculations against faith: that remains of Jesus might be found one day; that natural explanation of the virgin birth and resurrection might be found; that evidence of the scripture being a fictional work of art be discovered, or generally some historical finding might render Christianity a myth.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a proper definition of Sola Scriptura yet if Sola Scriptura were the true rule of faith, it itself would logically have to be in the scripture. The salient fact is that Jesus surely did establish the Church (leaving aside for a moment arguing whether the Church He founded was Catholic in the narrow or some broader sense), -- but He never instructed anyone to write down anything. Christ intended the Church to be the rule of faith, and the Church produced the Christian scripture as part of her mission.
and the majority [of the liberal Catholics are] in the West
Very true. Another reference to Kuraev's book. He says that while in the West the ecumenically-minded Roman Catholics are theological conservatives who long for an injection of Orthodox fundamentalism, in Russia the voices clamoring for speedy reunion with the Western Church are the liberals whose hope is to water down that very fundamentalism. I think he is correct on that.
Or did you mean political liberalism and political conservatism? That, I think is due to the poorly defined political terms in the US. Catholicism is by definition conservative in the sense that it is oriented to the past event of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. We view the intervening time as something that is an obstacle to salvation of the souls, rather than any kind of "progress". But naturally, Catholics are more receptive to the forms of primitive socialism of the Early Church, condmenation of greed as a motivating factor, charity to especially the poor, -- the kind of things that the American Left pretends to have an interest in as well. On the other hand, the cultural liberalism of today: the indifferentism toward sexual norm, moral and philosophical relativism, the notion that a law is valid as soon as it is democratically enacted -- Catholicism would fight to the death, whereas there is no shortage of Protestant denominations falling over to the dark side on that.
Roman Catholics show more concern over a liberal Catholic who becomes a conservative born again evangelical than when he was a nominal Catholic
Of course. The falling off the Mother Church is a consciously taken step toward death. One can sympathize with one who struggles with Catholicism from the outside and fails to find it. Falling off the embrace of the Church once experienced is simply a horrific act of deliberate destruction. The grief is the same grief as over the fall of Adam. Of course, the responsibility for the Reformation and its evil fruit is entirely with the Church, and that adds to the pain.
On the other hand, a shift in political affiliation is not really a big deal, so long as it is not in itself defying the Church. To put it in a few words, it bothers us when one joins the liberal reservation on the Catholic non-negotiables, - abortion, human cloning, gay "marriage", euthanasia and artificial insemination of humans. If one joins the liberals for some other reason, it is his choice.
the overall historic evangelical Protestant position has been that faith and works are separate as far as to what actually procures justification
No. Not separate. Grace and works are separate altogether. Faith and works are either separate or one and the same, depending on the nature of the works. Works done out of love of God and the neighbor (Mattthew 5-7) are works of self-denial and therefore works of faith in Jesus Who did the same works. Those are a direct reason of the individual's salvation (Matthew 25:31-46). Works of the law -- in fact any works done for some purpose rewarded in the temporal life --- are naturally not bearing an eternal rewatd of salvation. If there is anything in the prooftexts that you offer (Rm. 4: 5,6; 9:11; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9 or any other) that contradicts what I just said, please, devote a post to just that and explain textually why. Do not forget to examine the immediate context: for example, Tutus 3:5 is incomplete unless the entire passage is apprehended. The salient points I need addressed:
1. "Works" in general are a badly defined term. Most anything we do other than cogitate are works. It is not enough to see the word "works" somewhere in the Bible and jump to conclusions. One has to determine the context in which that particular type of activity is pronounced upon, and the kind of activity being spoken about.
2. Liturgical "works" are works that God works. Man is merely asking His presence and His will. You did not mention that specifically, but I would like to know if the Eucharist, for example, is something you consider non-salvific works.
3. Certain works, under the general category of works of love (or of charity, or of faith) are singled out in the Gospel as at least conducive or perhaps concurrent to our salvation. So I need a comment specially on Matthew 25:31-46 (it is not the only place where such are commented upon, but that is the clearest, spoken by Christ Himself, and with direct consequence of eternal life in Christ or eternal life of damnation, -- i.e. salvation).
4. James 2 spends several paragraphs to debunking Faith Alone. It places the need for works to cooperate with faith in the context of justification. It does not pass the scriptural test to dismiss that as reference ot what the justified by faith do after they are justified: it says literally that they are justified because -- not by a prior faith but because, -- their works cooperated with their faith and not justified by faith alone.
Further, I am far more lenient toward Luther (if that is your reference to historical Protestantism), and generally to some thought put into the role of works as opposed to latter-day Protestant mindless sloganeering on the subject. Keep that in mind. I think that historical Protestantism really missed an opportunity with the Joint Declaration on Justification. I would like some comment on why, do you think, if "historical" Protestantism really held to some form of Catholicity as regards the "works", did that not result in a movement for the Lutherans to re-unite with the Church in the manner analogous to the Anglicans?
SS can result in a transdenominational unity that is manifestly effectual to the salvation of souls
I see how Sola Scriptura furnishes some basis of interdenominational Protestant unity. That is what slogans generally do: they unite diverse factions under some sufficiently vague banner. But that is not the unity Christ prays for in John 17, where the unity of the Christendom is seen as hypostatic unity of the Holy Trinity. Would you imagine Jesus arguing with the Father whether Man is totally depraved or perhaps just falling to sin in absence of grace; or whether the Cup Jesus drunk was for all or for the Elect? These divisions would be intolerable in any community of faith claiming biblical unity.
The Roman Catholic may argue that cults such as the LDS do not have the historical evidence for their claim, but the efficacy of this argument depends upon the interpretation that formal historical descent is a basis for authenticity, which it is not (and never was totally).
I never mentioned LDS, so I don't see how does that fit in our conversation. I also agree that formal historical descent is not a basis for authenticity even when undisputed. I beleive I gave that example already: the Anglicans and some Lutherans DO have a historical descent from the Apostolic Church. That helped for a while, but in order to be an authentic Church one has to hold to the authentic, that is Catholic, doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox do, and so their Church, hostile as it is sometime to the West, is an authentic Church. The Anglicans and the continuing Lutherans do not, and so their apostolic succession is formal yet not efficatious.
The distinction you make is that the believer goes in faith in order to glorify God, assuming this is in conflict with making his calling and election sure, which it is not.
Well, if it is not, then how do you say that justification is by faith alone? If I want to get to point B from A, and if X is something that makes sure my arrival then I would say, X is necessary for my arrival.
yet Rome disallows being confident you are saved
For that very reason. The scripture says that one has to walk a certain way to "make sure his calling and election". So how can we condone one who has not completed the walk to be confident?
At the same time, Rome doesn not promote the idea that we have no reason for hope. Indeed, we do: one who follows the things the Church has proposed for our salvation is assured of that very salvation.
Rome is the one who is unScriptural here, as it has the convert being made actually righteous in heart by “infused righteousness” via baptism [...] so he is formally justified by his own personal righteousness and holiness (causa formalis). This is in contrast to righteousness being imputed to him
I bleeped out the reference to the manner of Baptism (infant or not, sprinkled or immersed) as irrelevsant to this thought.
There is no "so". A baptised child (or a man of any age) is not instantaneously becoming righteous. The difference that the sacraments furnishes is that Christ is asked by another believer to protect the child. Yet, it is not imputed righteousness because the child is for the time being actually infused with grace. It would be in fact ridiculous to ask God to "cover up" the sin of a eight days old baby. The baptismal prayer asks God to protect the child from future sin and accept him if he dies before commiting any sin. Truly, now that he is baptised, he "shall be saved" (Mark 16:16), as his belief is his naturally sinless, believing state.
The manner of baptism would only matter in two cases. First, it would matter if actual washing were taking place. In that case not really immersion would make a difference, but use of soap. However, we are told by St Peter that washing of dirt is not the purpose (1 Peter 3:21). Second, that would matter if it were directly commanded in the gospel, such as the certain interpretation of the Eucharist is fixed in John 6 and 1 Cor 11. But there is no such scriptural fix. St. John baptized in a river but St. Peter once asked is water for baptism could be denied (Acts 10:47), suggesting a water held around a house in a bucket. Palestine is an arid place, -- surely a river or pool nearby was a rare occurence. This all being said, the Church does recommend that a full immersion be made wherever practicable.
It is sure strange to see an insistence on full immersion made by people who ordinarily do not believe in any sacraments or, as they call them, rituals, to be ordained by Christ.