Rome's tactics.

[Josheb]

To answer this post risks continuing further off-topic, I think.

Yep.


So I reiterate the op-relevant point: Works in the mindset of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is inherently intertwined with works of social justice. To further the point, most, if not all, of the participants in this thread know how I construe the Ephesians 2:5-10 text to say we are...

• Saved by grace,
• Saved through faith,
• Saved for works (or more specifically, for good works God planned for us to perform before He saved us).

Therefore, works cannot be excluded as a necessary aspect or component of salvation. They simply are not causal to or the cause of one's salvation and that is where the conflict between the RCC and Protestant soteriologies ensues. The conflict is exacerbated because the RCC conflates justification with salvation when most Prots see some form of distinction, even though we would all agree there is no salvation without also having been justified. We are saved through faith and justified by faith; never saved by faith. All of that gets conflated in RCC soteriology. The specific matter of works, however, is........ (believe it or not the correct word fails me now but I'm going to proceed anyway) elaborated, complicated, divided up into different categories of works with aid to others. The RCC discriminates between "corporal" works and "spiritual" works and their doctrines and rituals elaborate elaborately. they do the same with sin, btw. For the RC, a "work" is supposed to be an action that demonstrates faith and obedience, whereas for the Prot a soteriological "work" is considered to be one prompted, inspired, empowered by the Spirit at work within the regenerate because anyone - even the dead sinner - can be nice. Therefore, the phrases "saved by faith and works," and "justified by faith and works" have very specific meanings to the RCC and it's quite common for both sides to either assert strawmen, ambiguity, or categorical errors (same terms with different meanings). Unblessedly, even RCC commentary on social justice neglects the foundational aspect of serving God.

"Social justice is an integral part of Church teaching. It is based on the rights that flow from and safeguard human dignity, and it inclines us to work with others to help make social institutions better serve the common good."​

No "common good" is served apart from God or His will, but that is digressive. The point being (because I do not want to belabor social justice, is that "works" (doctrinally speaking) means something entirely different to the RCC than they do to Prots, and even if Prots and RCs manage to work (no pun intended) from common definition, there's many different kinds of works that save (and don't save).

So what?

A straw man is never a godly work .

 

[Eleanor]

You should really try Google more often before posting. An entire book or three would even be

Justice applies to all arenas. . .it's one and the same justice. . .giving one what they have earned, what they are due, what they are owed.

Not to be confused with charity.

 

[Eleanor]

In any text-based medium it is necessary to write in a manner that precludes ambiguity because one of the most basic facts of text-based mediums is that if something can be misinterpreted then it certainly will be misinterpreted by someone. If the post was misread then I will gladly acknowledge that and reply accordingly once that's made clear.

Do you believe in the Trinity; i.e., three distinct persons--Father, Son, Holy Spirit--in the one God?

 

[makesends]

Yep.


So I reiterate the op-relevant point: Works in the mindset of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is inherently intertwined with works of social justice. To further the point, most, if not all, of the participants in this thread know how I construe the Ephesians 2:5-10 text to say we are...

• Saved by grace,
• Saved through faith,
• Saved for works (or more specifically, for good works God planned for us to perform before He saved us).

Therefore, works cannot be excluded as a necessary aspect or component of salvation. They simply are not causal to or the cause of one's salvation and that is where the conflict between the RCC and Protestant soteriologies ensues. The conflict is exacerbated because the RCC conflates justification with salvation when most Prots see some form of distinction, even though we would all agree there is no salvation without also having been justified. We are saved through faith and justified by faith; never saved by faith. All of that gets conflated in RCC soteriology.

The specific matter of works, however, is........ (believe it or not the correct word fails me now but I'm going to proceed anyway)

Thanks for that! Yeah, that brought a bit of a chuckle

The specific matter of works, however, is........ (believe it or not the correct word fails me now but I'm going to proceed anyway) elaborated, complicated, divided up into different categories of works with aid to others. The RCC discriminates between "corporal" works and "spiritual" works and their doctrines and rituals elaborate elaborately. they do the same with sin, btw. For the RC, a "work" is supposed to be an action that demonstrates faith and obedience, whereas for the Prot a soteriological "work" is considered to be one prompted, inspired, empowered by the Spirit at work within the regenerate because anyone - even the dead sinner - can be nice. Therefore, the phrases "saved by faith and works," and "justified by faith and works" have very specific meanings to the RCC and it's quite common for both sides to either assert strawmen, ambiguity, or categorical errors (same terms with different meanings). Unblessedly, even RCC commentary on social justice neglects the foundational aspect of serving God.

"Social justice is an integral part of Church teaching. It is based on the rights that flow from and safeguard human dignity, and it inclines us to work with others to help make social institutions better serve the common good."​

No "common good" is served apart from God or His will, but that is digressive. The point being (because I do not want to belabor social justice, is that "works" (doctrinally speaking) means something entirely different to the RCC than they do to Prots, and even if Prots and RCs manage to work (no pun intended) from common definition, there's many different kinds of works that save (and don't save).

So what?

A straw man is never a godly work .

Most of what you say there is very good and useful. I agree and learn. My exposure to RCC is almost entirely from South American representations of it, and now and then some big TV event in the States, like the pope blessing people or whatever. Hoopla. I did spend some time on CF talking with a Catholic well educated in Catholic Theology and Dogma, and learned that, other than attempting to straddle the fence and be vague, the theology statements he showed me were generally very good. But the Dogma??? Nah. And the practical working out of it --not at all.

I have erased a couple long paragraphs I had written, because I don't want to belabor social justice either. But I don't like that definition. Sounds "Progressive Christian" to me, or even modern RCC.

You say, "...works cannot be excluded as a necessary aspect or component of salvation", and I would agree, except in your usual precision of speech I wonder if you mean what you say, there, or if you are only trying to get across something hard to describe. In the nebulous mind of the RCC members, (and probably even most who identify as Protestants), no matter how you qualify that in your ensuing statements, they will still think, "yes, we work so that we are saved", and ignore how your qualifying statements are brought to bear. On a different day, I might expect you to say that works MUST be excluded in Salvation! It is true that salvation WILL result in works, and, maybe more to the point, it will result in a whole mindset change, from which good works flow naturally. Specifically also, if one's assent to the Gospel and 'acceptance of Christ' and submission of heart to God and so many other virtues, are works, then they do accompany salvation --necessarily. As you indicated.

Maybe I'm just objecting to what that sentence sounds like to me. I'm glad you qualified it.

Lol, now I'm wondering why I wrote this! Oh well.

 

[Josheb]

Do you believe in the Trinity; i.e., three distinct persons--Father, Son, Holy Spirit--in the one God?

What is the topic being discussed in this op?

There is no such thing as social justice...

Justice applies to all arenas. . .it's one and the same justice. . .giving one what they have earned, what they are due, what they are owed.

Unh huh. I will wait while you address the op-relevant substance of what I have posted.

 

[Josheb]

................in your usual precision of speech I wonder if you mean what you say, there, or if you are only trying to get across something hard to describe.

A salvation without purpose is a dubious salvation and a god who saves without purpose is not the God of the Bible. Works are a necessary aspect of salvation. Works, especially those of the unregenerate sinner, do not cause salvation and (since every Christian who's read his/her Bible agrees with that scriptural truth - and logical necessity) that's a great place to start with RCs.

In the nebulous mind of the RCC members, (and probably even most who identify as Protestants), no matter how you qualify that in your ensuing statements, they will still think, "yes, we work so that we are saved", and ignore how your qualifying statements are brought to bear......

Yep. And to them I would ask a simple question: "Would you please explain to me how the finite can reach the infinite?" and then maybe look around for a broom and a dustpan because the inquiry is likely to result in an exploding head or an exploding rage.

Just saying

And the RC who answers correctly is an RC who understands his/her Bible and is less dogmatic about RCC Dogma (less ideological, less idolatrous, etc.).

 

[makesends]

A salvation without purpose is a dubious salvation and a god who saves without purpose is not the God of the Bible. Works are a necessary aspect of salvation. Works, especially those of the unregenerate sinner, do not cause salvation and (since every Christian who's read his/her Bible agrees with that scriptural truth - and logical necessity) that's a great place to start with RCs.

Yep. And to them I would ask a simple question: "Would you please explain to me how the finite can reach the infinite?" and then maybe look around for a broom and a dustpan because the inquiry is likely to result in an exploding head or an exploding rage.

Just saying

And the RC who answers correctly is an RC who understands his/her Bible and is less dogmatic about RCC Dogma (less ideological, less idolatrous, etc.).

That's for sure.

God is specific. Particular. Precise.

God is not about us, but us about Him. "It is he that has made us, and not we, ourselves."

To me, this goes to the core of error --that we think to take on ourselves the ability to produce very virtue, in and of ourselves.

 

[Josheb]

To me, this goes to the core of error --that we think to take on ourselves the ability to produce very virtue, in and of ourselves.

yep. That thought corrupts a lot of Christians thought, doctrine, and practice. However, I do discriminate between the self in sin and the self in Christ. "Ourselves" in Christ is much different than those still dead and enslaved by/to/in sin with no covering or indwelling but that of sin. Those doing the good works God had planned beforehand are..... those created in Christ.

Fundamentally two different creatures.

Which is why any works causality for salvation fails. Not only cannot the finite ever reach the infinite, but imperfection never begets perfection, either.

 

[Eleanor]

Do you believe in the Trinity; i.e., three distinct persons--Father, Son, Holy Spirit--in the one God?

What is the topic being discussed in this op?

That's a "no."

 

[Josheb]

Do you believe in the Trinity; i.e., three distinct persons--Father, Son, Holy Spirit--in the one God?

That's a "no."

That's complete hogwash.

Look HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE. There are more than a dozen threads in the Trinity board where I have asserted, affirmed, and defended the doctrine of the Trinity. A simple glimpse of the About link on my profile page would have answered the question before it was asked.

"Currently theologically Reformed, non-denominational, partial-preterist, annihilationist, Trinitarian, and fellowshipping in an evangelical PCA congregation."​

Post #228 is wrong about social justice and avoided the op-relevant content entirely.
Post #243 is off topic. This op is about Rome's tactics as they pertain to soteriology, not the Trintity.
Post #249 misrepresents another post by insinuating I'm not Trinitarian. It violates Rule 5 of this forums Terms of Service.

5: Do not misquote or misrepresent another member.​

.

 

[Arial]

That's complete hogwash.

Look HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE. There are more than a dozen threads in the Trinity board where I have asserted, affirmed, and defended the doctrine of the Trinity. A simple glimpse of the About link on my profile page would have answered the question before it was asked.

[/i]"Currently theologically Reformed, non-denominational, partial-preterist, annihilationist, Trinitarian, and fellowshipping in an evangelical PCA congregation."[/i]​

Post #228 is wrong about social justice and avoided the op-relevant content entirely.
Post #243 is off topic. This op is about Rome's tactics as they pertain to soteriology, not the Trintity.
Post #249 misrepresents another post by insinuating I'm not Trinitarian. It violates Rule 5 of this forums Terms of Service.

5: Do not misquote or misrepresent another member.​

You are trolling.

You are not a moderator. If you make an unjustifiable report and it is rejected with reason given, that does not mean you come to the open forum and do the moderating yourself. This is not the first time you have done that. You have no reason to believe or assume that @Eleanor was accusing you of not believing the Trinity given all the exchanges that have been made. She responded much the same way you often respond to her.

But you are misrepresenting another member when you say she is trolling.

 

[Eleanor]

That's complete hogwash.

Would it not have been simpler to respond with "yes" or "no" to my question (post #243)?

 

[Josheb]

Would it not have been simpler to respond with "yes" or "no" to my question (post #243)?

Hmmm..... (is that bait? ) Don't ask me questions unless an answer is wanted .

No, it would not have been simpler and a double standard is being asserted because if "simpler" were the goal then it would have been simplest to get back on the topic of Rome's Tactics. Post 245 provided the opportunity to do exactly that, and it did so in good faith, goodwill, and for the benefit of everyone in this thread. An alternative would have been to not bring the Trinity into the thread in the first place. Once that happened, the next simplest response would have been "My apologies, Josh, I got this thread mixed up with another." That is what would be simpler.


Got anything op-relevant to post?




(like maybe addressing the contents of posts 205, 213, 216, 227, 237, 241, 246, 248 or any number of others' contributions op-relevantly? )
.

 

[Arial]

Got anything op-relevant to post?

 

[Eleanor]

Hmmm..... (is that bait? ) Don't ask me questions unless an answer is wanted .

Don't refuse to answer questions that are asked.

 

[Josheb]

Don't refuse to answer questions that are asked.

Don't ask questions that violate the forum's rules because they're off topic and address the poster not the post.

 

[Eleanor]

Don't ask questions that violate the forum's rules because they're off topic and address the poster not the post.

That's good work if you can get it.

 

[Arial]

Don't ask questions that violate the forum's rules because they're off topic and address the poster not the post.

Nobody violated a forum rule. The above does violate the same rule you say was violated. This better stop right here.