Protestantism Examined

[Douay]

Let's start with a definition. Webster-

Infallibility(adj.)-not capable of error, perfectly reliable.

Perfect(adj.)-without blemish or defect, faultless, morally correct.

Well, I guess those two words aren't all that different.

I quote some recent posts here on worthy:

"Since the Bible does not teach an invisible Church, but rather a literal, functioning, visible body of chosen ones, bound together by covenant, it is evident that Church perfection means something more than the perfect holiness of individuals. The Bible teaches both individual perfection and Church perfection. Individual perfection results from the grace of sanctification and walking in the light. "

"We have got to overcome a false doctrine that satan has planted so firmly in the midst of Truth that has a lot of Christians deceived and they don't know it. They have bought His lie that there is only one perfect and that is Christ."

At least only one Catholic claims to be infallible, and that, only under certain circumstances.

D

[Guest mcm42]

Infallibility is a characteristic of God, not something any man should or can claim...

Oh if anyone here thinks they are infallible, pick up a bowling ball sometime and throw a 300 for me. Then do it 2 more times... then I'll believe you are incapable of error Until then please... just stop!

[Guest yod]

Hey Douay,

I'm not going to pick on the Pope.

But I would like to point out for anyone who thinks "perfect" means infallible that it does not. The greek work which is translated "perfect" in the King James should be translated as "mature"

Big difference.

I understand how many protestants view the RCC based on a bias they've been taught at church. I also understand how many catholics view the RCC as the "one" true church. Both of these views are wrong to different degrees.

Like everything else that man does, it starts out with the best of intentions and becomes corrupt with sin. It becomes a serious problem when there is no admission of this fact. Then, what started out as a spiritual reformation becomes a "religion". It's hard to get catholic faithful to admit there has ever been abuse of the church by it's leadership because of the infallible doctrine. In my view, it would be better to assume that no one is ever infallible.

I admire the RCC for it's good works around the globe. No humanitarian aid agency can come close to the things they have done to feed and clothe the poor. Yet, for all this there have been tremendously harmful scandals in other areas of the RCC which get swept under a rug. This leaves them open for criticism and hurts any authority they may have otherwise deserved.

I wish we could find a way for the true church to be as One in the spirit of God without mentioning denominations at all....yet I have serious doubts about that happening in this lifetime without severe persecution sweeping our differences away.

So in the meantime the best we can pray for is respect and honesty. These threads "exposing" fault only put us at odds. Can we find something to agree on?

[RGR]

I'm Protestant (Pentecostal to be exact) and I know that there is no one in the Protestant or Catholicism realm that are perfect!!! It says somewhere in the Bible that there are none perfect-no, not one. The Bible says to confess Christ with your mouth and repent of your sins and you'll have salvation. If you've done that, you're my brother or sister in Christ. Guys, this isn't the Old Testament where we take someone out and stone them. No, we have a different directive-we speak the truth in love and I'm afraid I'm guilty of NOT speaking the truth in love sometimes-God forgive me and anyone I've not spoken to in love please find it in your heart to forgive me.

[Guest mcm42]

It says somewhere in the Bible that there are none perfect-no, not one.

Romans 3 says there is none righteous no not one...(is that what your referring to?)

[jmwhalen]

Ronald writes:

"...The Bible says to confess Christ with your mouth and repent of your sins and you'll have salvation. If you've done that, ...."

_________________

Ronald-"repent of your sins" is not the biblical requirement of salvation. If it were, no one would be saved. No one has repented of all their sins. The biblical requirement is belief. Telling an unsaved man to repent of his sins is a work, and you are telling him to "do" something as a prerequisite for salvation, and which he is in no position to do anyways. "Turning from your sins is sanctification, not salvation.

The Lord Jesus Christ justified(declared righteous)" the ungodly"(Romans 4:5), and "died for the ungodly"(Romans 5:6). This precludes repenting from sin(if you mean by this stop sinning or turning from your individual sins). I have had this discussion on the board in the past, so I will not belabor the point.

Repent merely means "to change your mind". The context determines it's meaning. For example,did you know the LORD God repented 37 times?

In Christ,

John Whalen

[stevehut]

The greek work which is translated "perfect" in the King James should be translated as "mature"

Or "complete", as I have understood it.

[stevehut]

-"repent of your sins" is not the biblical requirement of salvation.

Are you sure about that?

Acts 2:38

Acts 3:19

[jmwhalen]

Stevehut writes:

"Are you sure about that?Acts 2:38Acts 3:19"

____________________________________

Thanks for the question.

Yes. The context in Acts is "changing their mind" about crucifying their Messiah.

It might make more sense to answer the question first that I posed, i.e., "Did you know that God repented...What did God mean when He inspired Moses to write that He repented, rather than say "Look at Acts.....". We need to grasp the foundation for what the word means before jumping to another "Well, what about (whatever passsage). I receive a deafening silence when I ask re. God repenting. We can debate/argue(arguing is good!) the meaning of this question, and there may be some legitimate differences of opinion on it's meaning, but ignoring the question, and not considering it as a means to understanding the true meaning of "repent" is not beneficial-we are "spinning our wheels".

The book of Acts written by "Dr.Luke" is not the story of the birth of the Body of Christ, as many have incorrectly assumed, but the divine account of the temporary setting aside of Israel.

"The Acts of the Apostles" may be a little misleading, in that Peter and Paul are the only Apostles who play major roles in the history recorded in this book. Also interesting is the fact that Peter disappears early in the book, only reappearing in support of the new Apostle, Paul. Because of this, some have thought that the selection of Matthias as Judas' replacement was human error. A close look at the first chapter, however, will demonstrate that, far from being elected by men, Matthias was selected by God. God always distinguishes Paul and his Grace message from the Twelve and their Kingdom message. The Twelve never claim Paul as one of themselves, nor does Paul ever claim to be one of them.

The Twelve never claim Paul as one of themselves, nor does Paul ever claim to be one of them.

This is important in the extreme, as the way that God saves men in the present portion of His program--what men have called "the Church age" but God calls "the Dispensation of Grace"--is not revealed anywhere in Scripture except the Pauline Epistles. Not only so, but Christian life and ministry can only be found in Paul. The confusion about the all-important doctrine of Salvation, including repentance, has arisen because men have failed to realize the difference between salvation for a believing Jew under Law and in a Covenant relationship with God, and salvation for all, Jew and Gentile concluded under sin today, under Grace.

Additional confusion ensues when teachers who fail to rightly divide the Word and ignore the unique nature of Paul's Apostleship by making him one of the Twelve, constantly confuse salvation with discipleship, and sonship with service.

When men are given something to do they invariably conclude that God is offering them an incomplete salvation, and that there is something that they must do, for example, aisle-walking, or "turning from their sins"/"repent of their sins"-to effect a complete salvation.

Since there were no aisles to walk until recently, this would leave millions of sinners down through history, which only believed, unsaved.

Believers of the present Dispensation must never move to Jewish ground to understand their salvation, their standing before God, or their walk. The gospels are for us because ALL of the Bible is for us, but the Pauline Epistles are TO us and ABOUT us and it is to the Pauline writings that we must go if we are to understand our salvation as saints of the present Economy and our life and ministry in the Program of God for today.

Salvation is said to be by faith ALONE one hundred and fifty times in the New Testament. When the Philippian jailer asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved?," Paul replied, "Believe on (trust in) the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."' Did God and Paul forget something? Was there something else the jailer should have done in addition to believing that Paul forgot and today's preachers must supply? No, Scripture is as clear as it is emphatic, God leaving no room to doubt where Man's eternal welfare is concerned, that we are "saved by grace through faith" plus nothing. God Himself does all the saving, all that you and I do is all the being saved!

The Book of Acts is not the Handbook of Salvation; Romans is that! Therefore, we must understand Acts in the light of Romans, and not the other way around.

The Book of Acts, properly understood, is a most significant key to understanding the Bible, but we must not miss the self-evident keys that God gives us to the understanding of the Book of Acts itself.

Remember, it is NOT... the story of the birth of the Body "Church"--you won't find even a hint of the Body of Christ until after Paul is saved and commissioned--and you will avoid needless and costly errors by the dozen, including the concept of repentance.

When Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, he is calling on Jews to rethink their position on the crucifixion of their Messiah, to "change their mind", and demonstrate their new attitude, faith, by submitting to the familiar Jewish purification ritual, water baptism. Peter, then, is not giving us Christians a salvation verse to use with unsaved people in the present Dispensation of Grace. We are not called upon to repent of what someone else did to Messiah in the first century. Nor do we receive the remission of sins as God's Covenant People did by submitting to Israel's water ritual.

By the time God and Paul write Romans a major change has taken place. The "due time" has come for the Apostle to the Gentiles to proclaim his new message, "the preaching of the cross." God's timing is a most important key to understanding His Word. Christ's giving Himself as a ransom occurred several years before the due time came for Paul to declare the benefits of this ransom to a lost world. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized. Peter could not have preached Paul's message on the Day of Pentecost. For instance, Peter could not have said then, "But now righteousness of God apart from law is manifested (made conspicuous);" it hadn't been. Israel was still under law on the Day of Pentecost. Heaven was holding back the "faith righteousness" message until the Law program had run its course.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[Douay]

But I would like to point out for anyone who thinks "perfect" means infallible that it does not. The greek word which is translated "perfect" in the King James should be translated as "mature"

Big difference.

So Protestants speak with the authority of the Bible at all times and when we hear what they say we should translate it into Greek first because it came to them as revelation from God and then translate it back into English.