Yes, I think it is possible to distinguish currents in Protestantism, where some believe in fact in the same salvific role of good works as Catholics do, but somehow combine that with the slogan of “faith alone”. The reason I allow myself a generalization is first, because I simply cannot presume the position of arguing for one Protestant comunity against another Protestant community. To me, as Catholic, they are all to differing degrees heretical. Secondly, the cornerstone of that heresy is Luther’s ideas of the supposed dichotomy between the law and the gospel which then allowed him to formulate “faith alone”. I think that all Protestant communities of faith are infected by that fundamental error. How they reconcile that with the obvious calls for sanctity and repentance thoughout the gospel is a certain art where each Protestant is his own pope, thus generating the ever-splitting Protestant theological movement. But the error is common to all.
As you must defend a church which loves to have the preeminence, and you must consider all who oppose it as heretical, and must never allow that they may be right, and thus a generalization which is not the majority position among those you contend with is convenient. Believing that saving faith must be of a type that produces fruit is not a mere “current,” but as I have abundantly substantiated (such as in post 5825 to you, to which i much more may be added) historic Protestantism broadly taught that a faith without works is dead, in addition to showing that this is consistent with the fact that justification is most precisely by faith. And while some deny the degree of freedom of will afforded man in choosing to deny the faith, it is Rome who engages in the most “artistry” in having believers merit the gift of eternal life via her sacramental system.
Nor is each Protestant his own pope, as they do not claim papal formulaic assured infallibility, but appeal to the Scriptures as the only objective source which is wholly infallible and are to rely upon its means of persuasion. And Scripture itself affirms men to judging what is taught by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11) and its attestation, as well as to ascertaining their own status as believers by what is written. (1Jn. 5:13)
And despite what it is claimed to do, those in Rome do not even know the infallible status of multitudes of pronouncements, but it is generally concluded that very little of the Bible has been defined, while exhibiting far less in exegetical endeavors than those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture, while Roman Catholics can have varying degrees of dissent among those that are not infallibly defined, and have great liberty to interpret Scripture outside such. In addition, overall her teaching itself requires some interpretation, both of which engage private interpretation (PI), and her members evidence less unity in core truths and moral values than those within evangelicalism.
Meanwhile, the unity Rome has by implicit trust in her AIM is not greater than those in cults which also look to a supreme magisterium over Scripture, and is of less quality than that which is results from faith in the evangelical gospel and supremacy of Scripture, despite different “tribes.” Moreover, the premise that such is needed to preserve the faith and to establish writings as being Scripture, as well as the basis for Rome's claim to be such, has been shown to be manifestly false, while Romes AIM rests upon her own infallible declaration that she is such.
Unity in the Bible did not come from implicit trust in an AIM, but men were persuaded by “manifestation of the truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) by a holiness and teaching which were in conformity with the Scriptures, along with Divine attestation of the faith, including the transformative effects of believing the preaching of what you seem to malign as the “misanthropic self-effacing me, filthy rags” gospel of grace, by which those who thus humble themselves are exalted. (Lk. 18:14)
Nor is each Protestant his own pope, as they do not claim papal formulaic assured infallibility, but appeal to the Scriptures as the only objective source which is wholly infallible and are to rely upon its means of persuasion. And Scripture itself affirms men to judging what is taught by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11) and its attestation, as well as to ascertaining their own status as believers by what is written. (1Jn. 5:13)
You're absolutely correct on this. Not one Protestant has ever claimed that he or she was their own pope.
That is simply a strawman erected by Catholics in a bid to discredit and mock Protestants. The claim that they think that is ALWAYS by someone opposing Protestant or Evangelical Christianity.
OTOH, if appealing to Scripture makes them their own pope, then one of two things is true. Either they're right because the pope is right about the authority of Scripture, or the pope is wrong since Protestants who appeal to Scripture are wrong.
Yes, and I do likewise. While my remarks can be, I am afraid, cutting, they are never intended to demean the opponent; my sarcasm, as best I can make it, is aimed at ideas or historical persons who got their names associated with their ideas, rather than people I converse with.
If I may digress, I was lately reading "The Ecumenism Challenge" by a contemporary Russian Orthodox thinker Deacon Kuraev (unless you read in Russian, this is not useful to you, but here it is: Вызов экуменизма). Well, if you are looking for a church that "loves the preeminence" this is she; most of the book is up-and-down thourough critique of the Roman Catholic ecumenical intentions vis-a-vis Orthodoxy, politics, theology and spirituality from the dispute over the Uniate churches in the Ukraine to St. Theresa of Avila's naughty mysticism and to the Filioque. (The Protestant theology, as far more distant from Orthodoxy, he does not dwell on barely at all). He makes one point I can wholly subscribe to. Wait, he .actually makes many points about ecumenism, even ecuumenism between our two Sister Churches I wholly subscribe to! This is that excellent point I want to let you read (translation mine, from page 4 according to the online pagination):
The way of human thought, the way of science and philosophy -- is the way of the search for the maximally clear, sharp formulations, way of proof and substantiation of one's position. Reason demands maximally full cognizance by man of his sensations, convictions, and his faith. The way of the theological thought is not an exception to that.When at the First Ecumenical Council the Fathers turned to the search for the most "God-appropriate words" to elucidate the Mystery of the Trinity, they did not look for words that might hide the distinctions between the Orthodox and the Arians, but rather words behind which the Arians could not hide. The entire labor of the Council was the search for the words with which all the participants in the Council would NOT agree; the search of the words that would separate the Orthodox from the Arians.
First, they suggested to insert into the Creed the formula "Son from God", but it turned out that the Arians consider that formula acceptable as a specific application of the more general formula "all things are of God" (2 Cor. 5:18). The formula "Son is God" was also accepted by the Arians who then would explain that the Son became God. Next, the formula offered by the Orthodox "The Son exists in the Father" was interpreted as applicable to the creatures, since "in him we live, and move, and are" (Acts 17:28). It was offered the formula "The Word is the true power of God" but it turned out that even the locust is called "my great host" (Joel 2:25 [, "η δυναμις μου η μεγαλη", "my Great Power" according to LXX which is the Orthodox Old Testament reference]), -- and so therefore even an Arian can easily speak of the son as "power of God" and at the same time see in Him not God but a creature. Yet another biblical formula was remembered, "Son is the light of the glory and image of His hypostasis". Well, it turned out that the Arians applied these images to man, referring to 1 Cor 11:7. So they had to find a word that would make clear the extraordinary degree of proximity of the Son to the Father, one that could not also apply to the relationship that exists between the creature and the Creator. When the word "one in being" was proposed -- then, finally, the Arians voted against it. At that time th econciliar thought reached its success, the word was found that clearly defended the Apostolic deposit of faith from the false reinterpretations. Theology is the science of most precise, rather than most acceptable words and formulae.
Yet in the ecumenical movement "In the contradiction of the Fathers and the Councils, expressions are sought, not most clearly fencing off the truth, but rather the fuzziest, the most acceptable" (46). The ecumenical impreative says: -- there is no need for clearer, and most elaborated formulae and arguments. If to have one's own position altogether becomes a crime against the humanity ("How dare you think different that the Catholics or the Buddhists?!") , -- then understandably there is not reason to substantiate or prove anything.
----
[46] Uspenski L.A. Theology, the icons of the Orthodox Church, Paris, 1989, pg 468.
I think, since I pinged our two Eastern Orthodox to this, after this ecumenical broadside, I will take a break and resume later on the rest of your post.
But justification is not "most precisely by faith". As I read the scripture, foremostly Matthew 25:31-46, which is singificantly, in case you wish to engage St.Paul vs. the Gospel type of argument, echoed in Romans 2:6-10, -- justification is not by faith but precisely by good works. I am not saying it is all by works, but it appears, scripturally, that it is. The Catholic Church teaches that faith that is mature incorporates good works, so we are fine with the formulation that we are saved by properly mature faith alone. We are not fine with faith alone in such way "that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will" (DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION , CANON IX).
it is Rome who engages in the most “artistry” in having believers merit the gift of eternal life via her sacramental system
But that, too, is plain scripture. The Church was told to baptize and celebrate the Eucharist (Matthew 28:19, Luke 22:19). She was told that the Baptism and the Eucharist are fonts of eternal life (Mark 16:16, John 6:55 or next to it). Where is the "artistry"?
Scripture itself affirms men to judging what is taught by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11) and its attestation, as well as to ascertaining their own status as believers by what is written. (1Jn. 5:13)
One should indeed do as the Bereans and "daily search the scriptures". This advice does not negate advice to seek understanding from an apostolic source (Acts 8:27-31). It is my constant theme that the Protestants at best -- at the historical, now virtually extinct best -- do not have doctrines that can self-evidently be reconciled with the scripture. I see plenty of sophistry that ostensibly reconciles it, but I do not see that simple, boot-in-the-bouilion simplicity of "my flesh is food indeed" or "by works man is justified and not by faith only".
those in Rome do not even know the infallible status of multitudes of pronouncements
No, we don't. That might be a blemish of a kind. Certainly a Catholic should do a better job figuring out his own faith, -- just look at all these Catholics going Pentacostal or something out of pure ignorance of their own Pentacostal birthright. But tat the same time, this is a legalistic argument. Would you as easily convict an American citizen for not knowing the Uniform Commerce Code, his state's Criminal code and the taxation laws? The American citizen has someone to ask and he has a general intuition of these things. This is not an endorsement of the mostrosity of the present US legal system, -- merely an appeal to the fact that a well-oiled formal legal system, which Catholicism in part surely is, -- doesn not necessitate a law degree of every participant. When in doubt ask the Church. Biblically speaking, by the way: Mt 18:18ff.
very little of the Bible has been defined
Good point. I heard it, and don't know the reference, but the Church actually fixed the interpretation of less than a dozen biblical verses. We have doctrines, -- we don't have quotebooks.
her teaching itself requires some interpretation, both of which engage private interpretation (PI), and her members evidence less unity in core truths and moral values than those within evangelicalism.
That is true too, and again speaks to the non-legalistic method employed by the Church, in the spirit of Matthew 5, "But I say to you". Again, the avenue of spiritual growth given a Catholic is primarily his priest, who is someone he can ask. That is not infallible, but the model works also to the larger community, till the questioner either finds an assent of faith ot leaves the Church. Whether Evangelicanism possesses a similar or superior degree of unity is not the proper question. The proper question is whether Evangelicanism accords with the Scripture. If it does, surely the Holy Spirit wil provide true unity. If it doesn't, and it doesn't, then the unity of Evangelicanism is simply the unity of any other group of people sharing a subculture: it does not unite in essence. There are many bikers, they all look alike in their leather, and they all fight bacause they're bikers.
along with Divine attestation of the faith, including the transformative effects of believing the preaching of what you seem to malign as the “misanthropic self-effacing me, filthy rags” gospel of grace, by which those who thus humble themselves are exalted. (Lk. 18:14)
The gospel of grace is the Catholic teaching. So is transformational rather than forensic justification by grace. However, penance is not a one-time public act. It is rather an recurring act of faith that involves telling of one's sins, sacramental absolution, and taking up the work where it has been left off due to sin "In stripes, in prisons, in seditions, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, In chastity, in knowledge, in longsuferring, in sweetness, in the Holy Ghost, in charity unfeigned, In the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armour of justice on the right hand and on the left; By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report ... be you also enlarged", (2 Cor. 6:5ff). When penance is reduced to a single time getting-saved event, one can surely say thet the spirit of penance has been replaced with a spirit of social recognition of the penitent. That is what I was directing my sarcasm at.