What turns grace into disgrace?
Grace is hyper by it's very nature. 'Where sin abounded grace did much more abound'. (Rom. 5:20)
Sin does not turn grace into disgrace. It can't. So what does?
Stranger
Charles Spurgeon's Sanity Litmus Test (are you insane?)
- Thread starter Phoneman777
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What turns grace into disgrace?
Grace is hyper by it's very nature. 'Where sin abounded grace did much more abound'. (Rom. 5:20)
Sin does not turn grace into disgrace. It can't. So what does?
Stranger
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,419
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
My dear young man. What church does not have intrigue, murder, deceit and blasphemy. Those are acts committed by the men of the church, not The Church itself. Those actions make the men of The Church bad, it doesn't make The Church bad. Please take the time to educate yourself about your Christian history.
The Pope is NOT recognized as God on earth. That is a flat out lie. The Protestant reformers had people "cruelly murdered for opposing" it's authority also. Learn history young man.
His Church is not individual men, women and babies. If that were true then there would be 2.2 billion churches in the world. Your statement makes NO SENSE.
If The Protestant Reformation was God's movement to restore what had so been completely covered over by the RCC then why are there now THOUSANDS of different churches teaching HUNDREDS of different doctrines? Your statement is not logical.
Before the reformation (revolution) there was one church with one voice; just like scripture said we should have. After the reformation there are thousands of voices (churches) and hundreds of doctrines that are ALL claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. So exactly WHAT did God restore? Maybe the reformation was Lucifer successfully dividing The Church.
If the reformation was a restoration then why did other men disagree with the reformers and start their own churches with their own doctrines? Was that another restoration by God? Then new men disagreed with those men and broke away and started their own churches/doctrines. Another restoration by God??? Then new men AND women broke away from them and started new churches. Was that another "restoration" by God????etc. etc....
Is God so confused that He had to keep restoring His church over and over again? Or are you confused?
IHS...Mary
No men are just confused, trying to make out there disorder is Gods order, o bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and your church has no good fruit, as we have cardinal pel back in aus facing court, he is teh sympton of a rotten religion, which so many defend, as if God ordains child molesting priests, id God blind...
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
- Jan 14, 2015
- 7,361
- 2,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Stranger, when I say people "change grace to disgrace", I mean EXACTLY what Paul means when he said people "changed the truth of God into a lie" - falsely representing what both truly are.
Just as people turn the truth into a lie by preaching that a lie is the truth, people even now are turning grace into disgrace by preaching that presumption is grace.
- Jan 14, 2015
- 7,361
- 2,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I write this for the benefit of those who may read your spirited opinion piece which is devoid of any facts:
1512, Christopher Marcellus, to Pope Julius II : "Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth."
Of course the church is not an individual man, it is God's commandment keeping people. The Antichrist, however, is the system of the Papacy, the Pope being the man at the head of it.
You cast dispersion upon the Reformation and blame it for disagreement among Protestants after the RCC spent over 1,000 years covering over and corrupting the truth of God with pagan lies and dogmas? While it is true that there exists disagreement as to what Scripture teaches among the Protestant churches, there were two things that all churches were once in solidarity of thought: salvation is by faith through grace alone and the Papacy is the Antichrist of prophecy. Sadly, most Protestants today fail Spurgeon's sanity litmus test.
Last edited:
Who are you saying preaches presumption is grace? What exactly is the preacher saying that makes you say he is preaching that presumption is grace?
As I said before, sin does not turn grace into disgrace. (Rom. 5:20) So what does?
Stranger
- Jan 14, 2015
- 7,361
- 2,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Stranger, if the great apostle Paul can say sinners "changed the truth of God into a lie", then I can say false preachers change the grace of God into disgrace. Checkmate.
I recognize there are false preachers and teachers. I guess what I was asking is, what does a preacher say that makes his preaching a disgrace to grace.
In other words, Paul preached grace. But when he preached grace many took it as a license to sin and accused him of it. (Rom. 3:8) To which Paul adamantly protested. (Rom. 6:1) (Rom. 6:15) Do you see yourself preaching grace to where people may mistake you for teaching a license to sin? That is the grace Paul preached.
Stranger
- Jan 14, 2015
- 7,361
- 2,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I don't literally mean God's grace can be harmed any more than Paul meant that God's truth can be harmed. Grace is still purely grace no matter what corrupt version of it is preached, just like God's truth is still true, no matter what corruption of it is presented as truth.
When preachers preach that grace is a license that allows us to continue sinning, although the Holy Spirit comes to:
- convict us of sin - John 16:7-12 KJV (that our actions are unholy)
- convict us of righteousness - John 16:7-12 KJV (that Jesus desires to live out His holy life in us, that our actions cease to be our own and commence to be His)
- convict of us judgment (Paul says we are slaves to whatever we yield ourselves to, be it sin unto death or obedience unto righteousness. Romans 6:16 KJV
You are missing my point. I know of no preacher of grace who says grace allows us to sin all we want. Do you? What is the preacher saying that makes you say he is disgracing grace?
And Paul didn't say that. But Paul was accused of what you are accusing preachers of grace as saying.
Have you ever been accused of preaching grace like that?
Stranger
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,419
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Dear friend,
Do some research. There is no such quote from Marcellus. You should refer to reliable websites or history books to form your beliefs.
Your faith thru grace alone statement is not true. Please provide evidence that "all churches were once in solidarity of thought" on that subject.
Scripture makes clear what the antichrist is. Your theory does not match scripture.
The reformation divided The Church. It was the beginning of the end for unity in the church.
The teaching that the Papacy is the antichrist is a 500 year tradition of men.
You are the one who suggested the individual man, woman or child is the church. Not me.
I will pray for you.
IHS...Mary
You have no documented evidence.
The Myth of Multiple "Millions" Supposedly Killed in the Catholic Inquisitions, Revisited (Anti-Catholic John Bugay's Historically Groundless Claims)
Your quote is based on a book over 100 years old and used outdated information. No historian buys exaggerated Protestant propaganda. Here is the full context of the book and I should remind you that anything on the Inquisition before 1960 is outdated.
Last edited by a moderator:
Since appeals to the admins to shut down this bash fest have gone ignored, I think I'll have my own bash fest.
In Massachusetts, for successive convictions, a Quaker would suffer the loss of one ear and then the other, the boring of the tongue with a hot iron, and sometimes eventually death.
In Boston three Quaker men and one woman were hanged. Baptist Roger Williams was banished from Massachusetts in 1635 and founded tolerant Rhode Island (Stoddard, 208).
Melanchthon accepted the chairmanship of the secular inquisition that suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment or death. . . . he was convinced that God had destined all Anabaptists to hell. (Durant)
A regular inquisition was set up in Saxony, with Melanchthon on the bench, and under it many persons were punished, some with death, some with life imprisonment, and some with exile. (Smith, 177)
The persecution of the Anabaptists began in Zurich . . . The penalties enjoined by the Town Council of Zurich were ‘drowning, burning, or beheading,’ according as it seemed advisable . . . ‘It is our will,’ the Council proclaimed, ‘that wherever they be found, whether singly or in companies, they shall be drowned to death, and that none of them shall be spared.’ (Janssen, V, 153-157)
In his Dialogues of 1535, Bucer called on governments to exterminate by fire and sword all professing a false religion, and even their wives, children and cattle. (Armstrong; Janssen, V, 367-368, 290-291)
His [John Knox’s] conviction . . . harked back to the darkest practices of the Inquisition . . . Every heretic was to be put to death, and cities predominantly heretical were to be smitten with the sword and utterly destroyed: “To the carnal man this may appear a . . . severe judgment . . . Yet we find no exception, but all are appointed to the cruel death. But in such cases God wills that all . . . desist from reasoning when commandment is given to execute his judgments.” (Durant , 614; citing Edwin Muir, John Knox, London: 1920, 142)
[Queen] Elizabeth . . . is on record for the burning of two Dutch Anabaptists in 1575. (Hughes, 143)
An English Servetus could have been burned under Elizabeth, and, in fact, in 1589 she burned an Arian. (Hughes, 274)
In the preface to the Institutes he [John Calvin] admitted the right of the government to put heretics to death . . . He thought that Christians should hate the enemies of God . . . Those who defended heretics . . . should be equally punished. (Smith , 178)
[During Calvin’s reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546] “58 persons were put to death for heresy.” (Durant , 473)
Melanchthon, in a letter to Calvin and Bullinger, gave ‘thanks to the Son of God’ . . . and called the burning [of Michael Servetus] ‘a pious and memorable example to all posterity.’ Bucer declared from his pulpit in Strasbourg that Servetus had deserved to be disemboweled and torn to pieces. Bullinger, generally humane, agreed that civil magistrates must punish blasphemy with death. (Durant , 484)
Persecution, including death penalties for heresy, is not just a Catholic failing. It is clearly also a Protestant one, and a general “blind spot” of the Middle Ages, much like abortion is in our own supposedly “enlightened” age. Furthermore, it is an outright lie to assert that Protestantism in its initial appearance, advocated tolerance. The evidence thus far presented refutes this notion beyond any reasonable doubt. (Armstrong)
The presence at sermons [in Zwingli’s Zurich] . . . was enjoined under pain of punishment; all teaching and church worship that deviated from the prescribed regulations was punishable.
The Mass was abolished in Zurich in 1525. (Armstrong; Dickens, 117)
William Farel, who preceded Calvin in Geneva, helped to abolish the Mass in August, 1535, seize all the churches, and close its four monasteries and nunnery. (Harkness [P], 8)
His [Farel’s] sermons in St. Peter’s were the occasion of riots; statues were smashed, pictures destroyed, and the treasures of the church, to the amount of 10,000 crowns, disappeared. (Hughes, 226-227)
Here, in 1529, after the Town-Council had prohibited Catholic worship, the Councillors were requested by the preachers to help fill the empty churches by issuing regulations prescribing attendance at the sermons. (Grisar, VI, 277-278)
[In John Knox’s Scotland] It was . . . forbidden to say Mass or to be present at Mass, with the punishment for a first offence of loss of all goods and a flogging; for the second offence, banishment; for the third, death. (Hughes, 300)
Protestant Inquisitions: “Reformation” Intolerance & Persecution
all citations from Protestant and secular historians
St. Thomas More: Noble Heroism Amidst Treachery [1991] *
161 English and 269 Irish Catholic Martyrs During the Reign of the Tyrant Henry VIII: 1534-1544 [at the Very Least: 430 Martyrs] [2-6-08] *
312 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (“Bloody Good Queen Bess”): 1558-1603 [2-8-08] *
123 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors in the Post-Elizabethan Era: 1603-1729 (+ 66 English Martyrs of Unknown Dates / Martyr Resources) [2-16-08] *
444 Irish Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors, Persecuted by English Royalty, Anglicans, Cromwellians, Etc.: 1565-1713 [2-27-08]
Discussion on Whether the English Revolution (aka “Reformation”) was a “Terrorist” Campaign [Facebook, 9-16-14]
Luther Favored the Death Penalty for Anabaptists [2-24-04]
Philip Melanchthon: Death for Denying the Real Presence (He Later Denied the Real Presence Himself) [5-23-06]
Lord Acton on Melanchthon and Persecution of Heretics for Denial of the Real Presence and Various Other Crimes [5-29-06] *
The Pope did nothing like this (but he is the anti-Christ and the reformers are tolerant???)
Martin Luther’s Reactions to the Deaths of Zwingli, St. Thomas More, and St. John Fisher [11-30-07; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
Martin Luther: The Civil Government Ought to Put Frigid Wives and Adulterers to Death [12-20-07; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
John Calvin’s Advocacy of Capital Punishment and Persecution of Those Whom He Considers “Blasphemers” or Heretics (Catholics, Anabaptists, Etc.) [6-1-09]
*
Protestant “Reformer” Martin Bucer Advocated Death for Adulterers [9-18-09; posted to Facebook on 2-6-17]
*
Martin Luther Advocates Torture and Execution for Prostitutes, Female Sorcerers, Burning of “All” Witches [2-22-10; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
John Calvin: Torment of an Inept Execution “Special Will of God” [3-23-10]
*
John Calvin’s Mocking of Michael Servetus’s Initial Reaction to His Death Sentence (Burning at the Stake) [3-25-10; posted to Facebook on 8-30-17]
*
John Calvin Reiterates His Support of Capital Punishment for Heresy in 1557: Four Years After Servetus’ Execution [11-6-11]
*
Reply to Reformed Luther Apologist James Swan’s Request for Documentation of Executions of Anabaptists Sanctioned by Luther, in the 1530s [8-17-14]
*
Calvin the “Destroyer” of Servetus: James Swan Misses Forest for Trees [8-24-17]
the bash fest continues...
In Massachusetts, for successive convictions, a Quaker would suffer the loss of one ear and then the other, the boring of the tongue with a hot iron, and sometimes eventually death.
In Boston three Quaker men and one woman were hanged. Baptist Roger Williams was banished from Massachusetts in 1635 and founded tolerant Rhode Island (Stoddard, 208).
Melanchthon accepted the chairmanship of the secular inquisition that suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment or death. . . . he was convinced that God had destined all Anabaptists to hell. (Durant)
A regular inquisition was set up in Saxony, with Melanchthon on the bench, and under it many persons were punished, some with death, some with life imprisonment, and some with exile. (Smith
The persecution of the Anabaptists began in Zurich . . . The penalties enjoined by the Town Council of Zurich were ‘drowning, burning, or beheading,’ according as it seemed advisable . . . ‘It is our will,’ the Council proclaimed, ‘that wherever they be found, whether singly or in companies, they shall be drowned to death, and that none of them shall be spared.’ (Janssen, V, 153-157)
In his Dialogues of 1535, Bucer called on governments to exterminate by fire and sword all professing a false religion, and even their wives, children and cattle. (Armstrong; Janssen, V, 367-368, 290-291)
His [John Knox’s] conviction . . . harked back to the darkest practices of the Inquisition . . . Every heretic was to be put to death, and cities predominantly heretical were to be smitten with the sword and utterly destroyed: “To the carnal man this may appear a . . . severe judgment . . . Yet we find no exception, but all are appointed to the cruel death. But in such cases God wills that all . . . desist from reasoning when commandment is given to execute his judgments.” (Durant , 614; citing Edwin Muir, John Knox, London: 1920, 142)
[Queen] Elizabeth . . . is on record for the burning of two Dutch Anabaptists in 1575. (Hughes, 143)
An English Servetus could have been burned under Elizabeth, and, in fact, in 1589 she burned an Arian. (Hughes, 274)
In the preface to the Institutes he [John Calvin] admitted the right of the government to put heretics to death . . . He thought that Christians should hate the enemies of God . . . Those who defended heretics . . . should be equally punished. (Smith , 178)
[During Calvin’s reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546] “58 persons were put to death for heresy.” (Durant , 473)
Melanchthon, in a letter to Calvin and Bullinger, gave ‘thanks to the Son of God’ . . . and called the burning [of Michael Servetus] ‘a pious and memorable example to all posterity.’ Bucer declared from his pulpit in Strasbourg that Servetus had deserved to be disemboweled and torn to pieces. Bullinger, generally humane, agreed that civil magistrates must punish blasphemy with death. (Durant , 484)
Persecution, including death penalties for heresy, is not just a Catholic failing. It is clearly also a Protestant one, and a general “blind spot” of the Middle Ages, much like abortion is in our own supposedly “enlightened” age. Furthermore, it is an outright lie to assert that Protestantism in its initial appearance, advocated tolerance. The evidence thus far presented refutes this notion beyond any reasonable doubt. (Armstrong)
The presence at sermons [in Zwingli’s Zurich] . . . was enjoined under pain of punishment; all teaching and church worship that deviated from the prescribed regulations was punishable.
The Mass was abolished in Zurich in 1525. (Armstrong; Dickens, 117)
William Farel, who preceded Calvin in Geneva, helped to abolish the Mass in August, 1535, seize all the churches, and close its four monasteries and nunnery. (Harkness [P], 8)
His [Farel’s] sermons in St. Peter’s were the occasion of riots; statues were smashed, pictures destroyed, and the treasures of the church, to the amount of 10,000 crowns, disappeared. (Hughes, 226-227)
Here, in 1529, after the Town-Council had prohibited Catholic worship, the Councillors were requested by the preachers to help fill the empty churches by issuing regulations prescribing attendance at the sermons. (Grisar, VI, 277-278)
[In John Knox’s Scotland] It was . . . forbidden to say Mass or to be present at Mass, with the punishment for a first offence of loss of all goods and a flogging; for the second offence, banishment; for the third, death. (Hughes, 300)
Protestant Inquisitions: “Reformation” Intolerance & Persecution
all citations from Protestant and secular historians
St. Thomas More: Noble Heroism Amidst Treachery [1991] *
161 English and 269 Irish Catholic Martyrs During the Reign of the Tyrant Henry VIII: 1534-1544 [at the Very Least: 430 Martyrs] [2-6-08] *
312 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (“Bloody Good Queen Bess”): 1558-1603 [2-8-08] *
123 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors in the Post-Elizabethan Era: 1603-1729 (+ 66 English Martyrs of Unknown Dates / Martyr Resources) [2-16-08] *
444 Irish Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors, Persecuted by English Royalty, Anglicans, Cromwellians, Etc.: 1565-1713 [2-27-08]
Discussion on Whether the English Revolution (aka “Reformation”) was a “Terrorist” Campaign [Facebook, 9-16-14]
Luther Favored the Death Penalty for Anabaptists [2-24-04]
Philip Melanchthon: Death for Denying the Real Presence (He Later Denied the Real Presence Himself) [5-23-06]
Lord Acton on Melanchthon and Persecution of Heretics for Denial of the Real Presence and Various Other Crimes [5-29-06] *
The Pope did nothing like this (but he is the anti-Christ and the reformers are tolerant???)
Martin Luther’s Reactions to the Deaths of Zwingli, St. Thomas More, and St. John Fisher [11-30-07; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
Martin Luther: The Civil Government Ought to Put Frigid Wives and Adulterers to Death [12-20-07; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
John Calvin’s Advocacy of Capital Punishment and Persecution of Those Whom He Considers “Blasphemers” or Heretics (Catholics, Anabaptists, Etc.) [6-1-09]
*
Protestant “Reformer” Martin Bucer Advocated Death for Adulterers [9-18-09; posted to Facebook on 2-6-17]
*
Martin Luther Advocates Torture and Execution for Prostitutes, Female Sorcerers, Burning of “All” Witches [2-22-10; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
John Calvin: Torment of an Inept Execution “Special Will of God” [3-23-10]
*
John Calvin’s Mocking of Michael Servetus’s Initial Reaction to His Death Sentence (Burning at the Stake) [3-25-10; posted to Facebook on 8-30-17]
*
John Calvin Reiterates His Support of Capital Punishment for Heresy in 1557: Four Years After Servetus’ Execution [11-6-11]
*
Reply to Reformed Luther Apologist James Swan’s Request for Documentation of Executions of Anabaptists Sanctioned by Luther, in the 1530s [8-17-14]
*
Calvin the “Destroyer” of Servetus: James Swan Misses Forest for Trees [8-24-17]
the bash fest continues...
Last edited by a moderator:
The moral deficiencies of the original Protestant so-called "reformers" were the MOTIVE, for their apostasy. It was not merely that they were sinners. They were sinners who apostatized BECAUSE of their sins.
If Henry VIII did not want to divorce his sacramentally married wife, marry his chippie mistress, steal Church lands and use the money to pay off his personal debts, England would still be Catholic. Henry VIII made himself 'head of the Church" in England. He had more mistresses than wives and he killed several of those. He used his 'religious authority' to ignore the teaching of Our Lord and Savior on divorce and serve his own lusts. he was also guilty of greed, egoism, cruelty, murder, extortion, and irreligion.
If Martin Luther did not suffer from severe bipolar manic-depressant illness with frank psychosis during his periods of mania, he would never have invented a purely formal definition of 'righteousness' that was evacuated of all moral content and inspired millions of others to settle for a sub-Christian notion of discipleship…
Luther lived with his paramour for 1 1/2 years before marrying her. He was complicit in the bigamy of Philip of Hess. He encouraged gangs of thugs to invade convents and rape the nuns therein.
If Zwingli the priest had not been a sex crazed rogue who seduced the young women in his congregation... and frequented prostitutes...
If Calvin had not been an egomaniac who had murderous intent towards anyone who disagreed with him and in fact executed many people under horrendous conditions. he treated the Genevans so badly that they through him out of town, but in the social chaos that ensued they invited him back so he could use his form of dictatorial repression to stabilize the social disaster the 'reform' had created. And there are the credible charges of his own private vices.
If Knox had not been part of the assassination team that murdered Cardinal Beaton...
- Cranmer was Henry's foil to destroy the Church. He had a secret wife in Germany while he pretended to be a celibate priest.
All in all they were total moral reprobates and hypocrites. Forgive me for not finding them worthy to challenge Historic Christianity, especially when their false doctrines were at the service of their personal vices.
The faults of the so-called "reformers" are central to their apostasy.
To turn around and complain that some Catholics may not have been nice is besides the point. No matter how mean some of them were, they stayed in the Church. Jesus said that he had come to save sinners, not righteous people. In light of that, claiming that Catholics were sinners therefore someone needed to found a new Church makes no sense! Sinners need to be in THE Church and no other.
If Henry VIII did not want to divorce his sacramentally married wife, marry his chippie mistress, steal Church lands and use the money to pay off his personal debts, England would still be Catholic. Henry VIII made himself 'head of the Church" in England. He had more mistresses than wives and he killed several of those. He used his 'religious authority' to ignore the teaching of Our Lord and Savior on divorce and serve his own lusts. he was also guilty of greed, egoism, cruelty, murder, extortion, and irreligion.
If Martin Luther did not suffer from severe bipolar manic-depressant illness with frank psychosis during his periods of mania, he would never have invented a purely formal definition of 'righteousness' that was evacuated of all moral content and inspired millions of others to settle for a sub-Christian notion of discipleship…
Luther lived with his paramour for 1 1/2 years before marrying her. He was complicit in the bigamy of Philip of Hess. He encouraged gangs of thugs to invade convents and rape the nuns therein.
If Zwingli the priest had not been a sex crazed rogue who seduced the young women in his congregation... and frequented prostitutes...
If Calvin had not been an egomaniac who had murderous intent towards anyone who disagreed with him and in fact executed many people under horrendous conditions. he treated the Genevans so badly that they through him out of town, but in the social chaos that ensued they invited him back so he could use his form of dictatorial repression to stabilize the social disaster the 'reform' had created. And there are the credible charges of his own private vices.
If Knox had not been part of the assassination team that murdered Cardinal Beaton...
- Cranmer was Henry's foil to destroy the Church. He had a secret wife in Germany while he pretended to be a celibate priest.
All in all they were total moral reprobates and hypocrites. Forgive me for not finding them worthy to challenge Historic Christianity, especially when their false doctrines were at the service of their personal vices.
The faults of the so-called "reformers" are central to their apostasy.
To turn around and complain that some Catholics may not have been nice is besides the point. No matter how mean some of them were, they stayed in the Church. Jesus said that he had come to save sinners, not righteous people. In light of that, claiming that Catholics were sinners therefore someone needed to found a new Church makes no sense! Sinners need to be in THE Church and no other.
Last edited by a moderator:
No Protestant can deny an organic relationship to Luther, any more than a Catholic can disavow all ties to the historic papacy, the Crusades and Inquisition, etc. If the Catholic must be constantly subjected to taunts about the "baggage" and "skeletons in the closet" of Catholicism, then the Protestant must likewise face up to the unsavory and less-than-saintly elements in Protestant history. Both sides must have the courage to fairly acknowledge their own shortcomings and the other side's positive, godly attributes.
0
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Kepha,No Protestant can deny an organic relationship to Luther, any more than a Catholic can disavow all ties to the historic papacy, the Crusades and Inquisition, etc. If the Catholic must be constantly subjected to taunts about the "baggage" and "skeletons in the closet" of Catholicism, then the Protestant must likewise face up to the unsavory and less-than-saintly elements in Protestant history. Both sides must have the courage to fairly acknowledge their own shortcomings and the other side's positive, godly attributes.
0
I'm here from that other thread. Can't remember the name, but you linked it to here.
Are you feeling better now!!
Personally, I dislike Calvin the most. Those people are serving a different God -- not the one I know.
I've always had difficulty with how we Protestants explain righteousness. We love to say that we can have none of our own but are only righteous because we are imputed righteousness from Jesus.
The O.T. is full of verses that say we, ourselves, are to be righteous and also do righteous acts - or, behave righteously. Today, this is seen as self-righteousness. I can't remember what the CC teaches about this and I'm too tired to look it up -- in the CCC (not youtube - upon which too many rely these days.)
P.S. Yes. There's enough to go around. Man seems to be very good at messing everything up. I blame it on the sin nature...it's always there ready to strike.
- Jan 14, 2015
- 7,361
- 2,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Charles Stanley, Adrian Rodgers, and most other preachers NEVER preach any consequences for sin, except to say that "you'll get fewer jewels in your crown". The Bible says you obtain grace only if you "confess and forsake", but most preachers preach you can obtain it even if you "confess and partake".
Righteous acts are not self righteous if they are done in response to God's grace. The glory goes back to God. "Works righteousness" was condemned as a heresy in the 5th century but the myth won't go away. Protestants and Catholics do good works all the time. Sometimes together.
Psalm 51:1-2 – O God, blot out my transgressions, wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. This cleansing requires an inner change of heart. Many Protestants believe that we are so depraved that God only covers our sins up by declaring us righteous (imputing Christ’s righteousness to us). The Catholic (and Scriptural view), however, is that God is powerful enough to blot out our sins and remove them. The view that God just declares us righteous by “covering us up,” denigrates the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives, who continues the work of Christ through His work of justification and sanctification (infusing His grace into souls and changing the inner person).
Psalm 51:7-9 – purge me and I shall be clean, wash me whiter than snow, fill me with joy, blot out my iniquities. We are purged and filled up internally, not just covered up externally.
Psalm 51:10 – create in me a clean heart, oh God, and put a new and right spirit within me (not “cover” me). God is so powerful that He brings about a real metamorphosis in ourselves.
Isaiah 43:25 – I am He who blots out your transgressions and forgets your sins. God does not cover our sins up. He blots them out by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Isaiah 44:22 – I have swept away your transgressions like a cloud, and your sin like mist. This is a real elimination of sin, not a covering up of sin.
Matt. 5:6; Luke 6:21 – those who hunger for righteousness “may be filled.” It is an inner change, not snow covering up a dunghill.
Matt. 5:20; Luke 1:6; Acts 10:35 – here are more examples of “doing” righteousness, not just being “imputed” external righteousness. We are not just defendants in a courtroom who have been exonerated. We are children of God endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit by whose grace we can become righteous.
Matt. 23:25-28 – the Pharisees appeared outwardly righteous to men, but inside they were filled with hypocrisy. God desires and helps us effect an inner change of heart. He doesn’t just declare that we are righteous.
Acts 3:19 – repent, that your sins may be “blotted” out. The word blotted comes from the Greek word “exalipho” which means an actual wiping away or removal, not a covering up.
John 3:16 – justification is ongoing, not a one-time event. God so loved (past) the world, that He gave (past) His only Son, that whoever believes (ongoing) in Him may have eternal life. The word “believes” is “pisteuo” in Greek which necessarily includes obedience throughout one’s life. This is proved by 1 Peter 2:7-8 which also uses “pisteuo” (to obey) and “apitheo” (to disobey). The same word “pisteuo” is used in many other verses about “believing in Christ” such as John 3:36; 5:24; Rom. 4:24; 10:9-10; cf. Rom. 1:5,16; 6:17; 16:26; 1 John 5:13 (often used by Protestants to support their “faith alone” theology). To “believe” means to “obey” throughout one’s life; it is not a one-time acceptance of Jesus as Savior.
Last edited by a moderator:
What a great post!
I remember this now.
I agree with all you've said.
Just two points:
I agree with ongoing justification, which Protestants call Sanctification.
Some seem to believe that they are saved one time, as you've stated, and that's it. Nothing further required. I often explain sanctification but it's not accepted by some. They even will claim that obedience is not necessary, and DISLIKE the word obedience -- as if God did not demand it.
The Protestant church has changed in the last 200 years or so and who knows where it will end. I see that the CC is also undergoing change. I truly believe we need to hang on to Jesus.
Regarding the covering of sin...
I remember this saying: Man can forgive sin but only God can forget sin. Most Protestant churches teach that sin is confessed and then forgiven and then forgotten by God. I'd say we're the same in this respect.
So what about the covering?
I also believe we are "covered" by Christ, in this way:
Our individual sins are forgiven and forgotten when we feel sorrow for them. But our sin nature is never completely gone although it's put under subjection by us with the help of the Holy Spirit. So when God, Father, sees us, He sees a sinful human and God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin. So Jesus covers our sinful nature (not our sins which have already been forgotten).
There is scripture for the above..
For instance Galatians 3:27, Romans 13:14
I also would include the Wedding Banquet,
Mathew 22:1-14 The guests had to be wearing the proper attire.
What IS the proper attire? We understand it to be Jesus.
Similar threads
