Replies

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)